Crosslink Spring 2007 - The Aerospace Corporation

Crosslink Spring 2007 • Crosslink
Spring 2007 Vol. 8 No. 1
Departments
2 Headlines
4 Profile
David J. Evans
16 Work Studies:
Snapshots of Diverse Career
Paths
42 Research Horizons
R&D as a Tool to Enhance
Technical Development
Analysis of Security Threat
Group Networks
Devising a Ground System
Cost Model
Human Systems Integration
Risk and Cost Models
46 Bookmarks
50 Contributors
52 The Back Page
Knowledge Management
at Aerospace
Virendra Mahajan
explains a spacecraft
telescope design to
Jason Ly.
Photo by Eric Hamburg,
design by Karl Jacobs.
In This Issue
6 The State of the
National Security Space Workforce
Patricia Maloney and Michael Leon
The aerospace industry is bracing for a potential shortage of skilled
­engineers and scientists able to work on national security space programs.
10 A Corporate Approach to
National Security Space Education
Bruce Gardner
The Aerospace approach to continuing learning draws upon the expertise
of its technical staff to present a flexible curriculum that can be tailored to
the needs of a diverse workforce.
17 Building and Sustaining Strong
College and University Relationships
Marian Peebles, Peggy Zweben, Sergio Alvarado, Joseph Betser,
­Samuel Osofsky, Karen Owens, and Gary Stupian
The Corporate University Affiliates Program introduces students to
­Aerospace early in their academic careers.
22 Developing the Next Generation
of Systems Engineers
Heidi Davidz
A recent study sheds light on what it takes to become a successful senior
systems engineer—and suggests a means to accelerate that process in
today’s engineering population.
26 Can Concept Maps
Bridge the Engineering Gap?
Michael Kramer
A recent Aerospace study sought to determine whether graphical
­representations of engineering thought processes could help capture the
knowledge of senior engineers.
30 Training the National Security Space
Workforce in Systems Architecting
Copyright © 2007 The Aerospace Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy or reprint is not required, but appropriate credit must be
given to Crosslink and The Aerospace Corporation.
All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of
their respective owners.
Crosslink (ISSN 1527-5264) is published by The Aerospace Corporation, an independent, nonprofit corporation dedicated to providing
objective technical analyses and ­assessments for military, civil, and commercial space programs. Founded in 1960, the corporation operates a
federally funded research and development center specializing in space
systems architecture, engineering, planning, analysis, and research, predominantly for programs managed by the Air Force Space and Missile
Systems Center and the National Reconnaissance Office.
For more information about Aerospace, visit www.aero.org or write
to Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 92957, M1-447, Los Angeles,
CA 90009-2957.
Questions about Crosslink may be sent via email to crosslink@aero.
org or write to The Aerospace Press, P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, CA
90009-2957. Visit the Crosslink Web site at www.aero.org/publications/
crosslink.
Mark Maier
Aerospace has developed a curriculum that effectively teaches the mindset
required for successful systems architecting.
37 Supporting the Development
of Customer Education
Al Hoheb, Brad Ayres, Dan Bursch, Gerard Fisher, and Dana Honeycutt
Many of Aerospace’s customers look to the corporation for help in
­developing timely, space-related training programs that fit their educational
needs and missions.
From the Editors
Workforce technical development for the aerospace
and defense community has become a national priority, with more government and industry groups raising
alarms over the quickening pace of senior-level retirements and the decreasing pool of U.S. citizens graduating with science and engineering degrees. But while the
national attention may be new, Aerospace—like many
organizations in the national security space arena—has
been dealing with the issue for a long time.
Recognizing the need to extend the technical capability of its workforce and prevent a shortfall in critical
skill areas such as systems engineering and acquisition management, Aerospace established a formal
in-house educational division in 1994. This division,
The Aerospace Institute, leads educational initiatives
at the corporation, offering employees opportunities
to enhance their technical and professional skills and
expand their career options. These workforce development initiatives and supporting resources have evolved
throughout the years, and customers are increasingly
looking to Aerospace for assistance in developing their
own educational programs.
Systems engineering and systems architecting—skills in
increasing demand—are two primary subjects being
taught to both employees and customers. Aerospace
has been supporting research that seeks to identify the
essential qualities of successful systems engineers and
architects, with an eye toward developing more effective ways of instilling and strengthening these traits.
Aerospace has always been eager to attract talented younger engineers and scientists. Through the
Corporate University Affiliates Program, members of
the Aerospace technical staff engage faculty and
students at selected colleges and universities in collaborative research projects. This program has been
effective in introducing students to the corporation, and
frequently leads to internships and full-time positions
after ­graduation.
Aerospace’s educational approach harnesses the enthusiasm and dedication of its technical staff, who are
typically eager to share their interest and expertise
with colleagues. It’s perhaps no coincidence, then, that
many of the authors in this issue of Crosslink are also
course instructors. Readers will also find a number of
short profiles of Aerospace personnel in diverse roles
and at various stages of their careers, who share their
perspectives on the professional development opportunities available at Aerospace.
We hope you’ll find this issue of Crosslink timely and insightful. It offers a glimpse at how Aerospace is helping
to attract and develop the next generation of scientists
and engineers to meet corporate, customer, and community needs.
Aerospace Influences Hubble Decision
NOAA Awards Contract to Aerospace
Aerospace analysis of alternatives to repair the Hubble Space Telescope influenced NASA’s recent decision to reject robotic servicing
in favor of a fifth shuttle-based servicing mission. Additional analysis by Aerospace of possible foam and ice debris impacts on the
shuttle orbiter may also have supported the NASA decision.
“The National Research Council Committee noted that Aerospace’s analysis was ‘the only quantitative analysis’ of the problem,”
said Gary Pulliam, Aerospace vice president of Civil and Commercial Operations. “The analysis was the subject of unprecedented
visibility, scrutiny, and political interest at the highest levels of the
government, culminating in testimony before Congress,” he added.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin announced the decision
in October 2006. “What we have learned has convinced us that we
are able to conduct a safe and effective servicing mission to Hubble,” Griffin said. “While there is an inherent risk in all spaceflight
activities, the desire to preserve a truly international asset like the
Hubble Space Telescope makes doing this mission the right course
of action.”
The repair mission will add two new camera instruments to the
Hubble, upgrade aging batteries that power the satellite, and repair
a light-separating spectrograph in the telescope. The Hubble rehab
mission, which is likely to launch in May 2008 using space shuttle
Discovery, would keep Hubble working until about 2013. Its estimated cost is $900 million.
“Hubble has been rewriting astronomy textbooks for more than
15 years, and all of us are looking forward to the new chapters that
will be added with future discoveries and insights about our universe,” said Mary Cleave, NASA’s associate administrator for the
Science Mission Directorate.
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) recently awarded a
five-year, $140 million contract
to Aerospace to continue its
longtime support to this federal
agency that monitors and predicts
the state of the oceans and the
atmosphere. John Hussey, principal director, NOAA Programs for
Aerospace Civil and Commercial
Operations, said the new contract
has five initial components.
“Aerospace will support the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS) and the Program Executive Office; the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R) and
NOAA observing-systems architecture; the Office of Systems Development; commercial remote sensing licensing and compliance;
and the NOAA Office of Space Commercialization,” Hussey said.
“An additional task is expected to be issued later.”
The new contract, which became effective Dec. 1, 2006, and includes a base year and four option years, follows two previous fiveyear contracts. During those years, Aerospace provided architecture
development, system requirements management, and major system
acquisition support to NPOESS and GOES-R as well as support
to NOAA’s operational polar and geostationary satellite systems
and associated ground systems development and planning. Among
other tasks, Aerospace developed observing-systems architecture
and supported NOAA’s involvement in national security ­­
space ­activities.
For more information about Aerospace support to NOAA satellites, see the Winter 2005 Crosslink issue on weather satellites.
Ion Propulsion
Courtesy of NASA
Ionfinity, a manufacturer of mass-spectrometry products, has been
awarded a grant to commercialize a soft ionization membrane developed by Aerospace and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The
technology could one day be used in a miniature ion engine for
micro- and nanosatellite stationkeeping. The technology is being
developed through a NASA Small Business Technology Transfer
contract, with additional funding by the U.S. Air Force. A U.S. patent has been awarded to Ionfinity relating to the use of the membrane in an ion thruster engine.
Andy Quintero of Aerospace’s Office of Intellectual Property
Management said, “Like JPL, Aerospace creates early-stage technologies that fall in the lower technology-readiness-level category.”
The process for commercialization is always challenged by the need
to secure adequate funding to move a technology from a low to a
high readiness level, he said. “The micropropulsion project utilizes
the Small Business Innovation Research grant program to advance
the technology to the next level. If successful, private funding
sources may come into play to help complete the insertion of the
technology into specific applications,” he said.
• Crosslink Spring 2007
Courtesy of NOAA
Headlines
Three Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) launches between
September and November 2006 extended to 48 the number of
consecutive successful Air Force operational launches. Aerospace
assisted in all three missions, which were launched by Delta rockets.
Ray Johnson, vice president of Aerospace Space Launch Operations, congratulated the Delta team, “This was a great way to end
the year: with 100 percent mission success.”
Two of those successful flights were Delta II launches of the
second and third modernized Block IIR Global Positioning System
(GPS) satellites. GPS-IIR-15 was launched Sept. 25 from Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Less than two months later,
launch of GPS IIR-16 on Nov. 17 from the Cape reached that
SMC 48 milestone.
The GPS modernization effort will improve navigation and timing capabilities for both civilian and military users. Eight satellites
are scheduled to be modernized and launched by 2008. “Aerospace
was part of formulating the original GPS-IIR specifications, closely
tracking the design, development, and factory test of the satellite,”
said John Clark, principal director of Space Systems at Aerospace.
The Delta II launch vehicle, which has been instrumental in
helping to sustain the GPS constellation, has launched all GPS-IIR
satellites. Aerospace’s Delta II operations team performed extensive
launch verification to assess flightworthiness and launch readiness
for the rocket, including a review of all build records and tests as
well as independent verification of mission analyses and software.
Art Falconer, principal director of Aerospace Delta II Operations,
said that particular attention is given during the readiness process to
assessing new designs and evaluating significant anomalies. Analysis and monitoring continues during launch-site processing, countdown, and postlaunch operations.
Another rocket in the Delta family, the powerful Delta IV,
launched a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)
F-17 satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base Nov. 4. Aerospace
supported the development of the Delta IV launch system from
its inception as one of the next generation of launch capabilities
known as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.
Mark Brosmer, principal director of Aerospace Delta IV Operations, said careful attention was given to the challenges presented
by a vehicle as powerful as a Delta IV carrying such a light payload.
The DMSP payload allowed the Delta IV team to accomplish a
historic first—a controlled deorbit of the rocket’s upper stage into
the Pacific Ocean. “The complex maneuver was accomplished to
eliminate space debris in compliance with the nation’s orbital debris
minimization policies,” Brosmer said.
The DMSP provides high-quality weather images to the U.S.
military and civilian communities. Each DMSP satellite is placed
in near-polar orbit for strategic and tactical weather prediction and
is equipped with sensors designed for the military’s specialized meteorological, oceanographic, and solar-geophysical needs. Aerospace
has supported DMSP for more than 30 years and provided key
mission-assurance support for the DMSP F-17 satellite, from early
satellite integration and testing to launch countdown monitoring to
on-orbit analysis and operations.
Courtesy of Boeing
DOD Sets Launch Record
Aerospace Recognized
for Knowledge Management
Aerospace’s knowledge management program was commended recently by the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC),
which selected Aerospace as one of five best-practice organizations
for knowledge retention and transfer.
“This is a major recognition of the success of knowledge management within Aerospace,” said Stewart Sutton of the Aerospace
Knowledge Management Office. “The selection was based on our
strategies, processes, and techniques for knowledge retention and
transfer,” Sutton said.
The corporation’s achievements in knowledge management will
be showcased along with those of the other four organizations
selected—NASA/JPL, Michelin, Rolls-Royce, and Fluor Corporation—at the APQC Knowledge Management Conference in
May in Houston. APQC is a nonprofit organization that provides
benchmarking and best-practice research for approximately 500
organizations worldwide in all industries.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • Profile
David J. Evans, Executive Director, The Aerospace Institute
Leading
Corporate
Education
Dave Evans has led learning,
professional staff development,
and knowledge sharing at
Aerospace—all keys to a highly
competent workforce.
Donna Born
A skilled workforce is The Aerospace Corporation’s
prime resource in its efforts to support the nation’s
space programs, and developing and retaining a staff
with high technical competence has always been a
corporate priority and contractual obligation. The
corporation’s original contract with the Air Force
Space and Missile Systems Organization, its primary
customer at its beginning, stated that Aerospace is
“responsible for providing the Air Force missile and
space efforts with an organization … possessing high
Dave Evans, seen here in his office, has led The Aerospace Institute since late 1995.
technical competence.” The corporation’s current
contract with the Air Force Space and Missile Sysand employee productivity; and accommodate individual career
tems Center continues to require Aerospace to perform
“at the highest level of competency [that] cannot be found at any and organizational needs.” The main thrust of the report, however, was to urge approval for a new division to assume responsiother place.”
bility for this mission, to implement a leadership culture, and to
Staff training and development, thus established at the corpodevelop a systems engineering program that would grant a certifration’s inception in 1960 by both corporate policy and structure,
icate. This structural change would raise workforce development
became the responsibility of the corporation’s personnel departto the status of a division, whose vision was “to be the world’s
ment, later Human Resources Division, whose mission was to
leading training institute for [space] systems engineering.” Trainsupport the success of the corporation through “training and
ing world-class space systems engineers would be its mission.
development to help employees attain their full potential.” It reThe board approved the proposal, and the Institute was created
mained part of that organization until management combined all
in June 1994 with Jack Schiewe, formerly group vice president
education and training programs under a separate division called
of the Engineering and Technology Group, as its first execuThe Aerospace Institute.
tive director. “Jack established several committees of interesting
David J. Evans, the Institute’s executive director, said manpeople from across the company,” Evans recalled, “and we put our
agement recognized that the needs of a growing and changing
heads together and figured what was this organization going to
customer base required a new concept of training. Creating the
look like and how was it going to work and what were we going
new division, Evans said recently, was intended to put “added
emphasis on those aspects of continuing learning and knowledge to do. We had to anticipate what our government customers were
going to need in the future and then prepare our employees to be
sharing that were really essential for helping Aerospace move
skilled and capable to do that kind of work.”
forward. Addressing the corporation’s need for greater systems
Under the Institute’s umbrella were Training and Developengineering skills was uppermost in management’s purpose.”
ment, Library Services, The Aerospace Press, The Aerospace ColThe Institute was first proposed to the corporation’s board of
trustees in 1993 in a management report on staff training and de- loquia Series, and all training formerly scattered throughout the
corporation. “The idea was to make those pieces work together
velopment at Aerospace. The report stated that the corporation’s
more than they had in the past to provide more benefits for the
mission for training and development was to “provide professional staff development and skills training for all employees; en- corporation and more corporate impact.” Evans, who had led development of the Institute’s original System Engineering Certificate
courage continuing education to enhance professional excellence
• Crosslink Spring 2007
Program, became executive director in December 1995 upon
Shiewe’s retirement. “Pete Aldridge Jr., who became the CEO in
1994, asked me if I would be willing to come over to the Institute
and serve as the director. So I’ve been here now since late 1995—
more than 11 years. Time goes by in a hurry,” he reminisced.
A Natural Fit
Evans was a logical choice for this position because of his technical and educational background, and his understanding of the
education needs of both Aerospace and the Air Force. He joined
the company in 1987, but had been associated with Aerospace
since 1967, when he was on assignment from the Air Force for
6 months to write his master’s thesis. “I had a very good impression of Aerospace then, just a young lieutenant working with all
these top-notch scientists doing satellite-data analysis, and it was
very interesting and very challenging. I learned so much in such a
short time, and I got a very positive impression of Aerospace right
from the beginning,” Evans said. Not least among the reasons for
his good feelings about Aerospace was that he met his wife, Rita,
who is today a principal director in the Corporate Information
Resources Division.
George Paulikas, now retired executive vice president of Aerospace, was his thesis advisor and encouraged Evans to continue
his graduate work. He went on to earn his Ph.D. in physics at
the University of California, Irvine, and later taught at the Air
Force Academy in Colorado Springs, where he eventually became chairman of the physics department. His first assignment
as an Aerospace employee was as a senior engineer in Advanced
Orbital Systems. At the time of his appointment as executive director of the Institute, he was a principal director in the Office of
Engineering and Technology Applications.
Evans described those early days shaping the Institute as interesting, but challenging. “One of the most important initiatives
the Institute was chartered with was preparing people to serve as
systems engineers. Mr. Aldridge had made it very clear to me that
what was most important to him was for us to focus as a corporation on our systems engineering skills—to really make sure that
that was a core competency at Aerospace. There were other skills,
such as skills in management, skills in leadership, skills in professional behaviors, as well as others, but the most important was
systems engineering. When I look back at those early courses,
they seem so elementary and so basic. When we first started the
systems engineering core course, for example, it was a full two
weeks. Now it is a four-day course. We’ve really scrubbed it, and
it’s much better focused on corporate business needs.”
Systems engineering, a systematic problem-solving methodology, had always been part of Aerospace’s mission, and some
basics were taught in the corporation’s early courses. But in the
1980s the corporation began planning for a substantial increase
in its systems engineering skills, and in 1992 and 1993 Aerospace
sent 13 engineers through the systems architecture and engineering master’s degree program at the University of Southern
California. The program had been created by Eberhardt Rechtin,
who joined USC upon retiring as president of Aerospace in 1987.
Many of that program’s graduates later contributed to building
the Institute’s technical courses.
Evans recalled the Institute’s efforts to get experts from all
over the company to help design the engineering courses. He
believes that determination to build quality into the programs
gained the respect of early skeptics. “Today we have about 300
members of the technical staff who are working with us as course
designers and instructors. I think it is quite an achievement that
this many people from other parts of the company want to work
with the Institute. They see it as important to take time from
their primary jobs to help make the Institute successful.”
The Institute’s mission today is to promote a corporate culture
of continuing learning and knowledge sharing. More than 350
Aerospace people contribute to delivering 157 courses to an annual enrollment of nearly 4,000. In addition to the training and
education courses, the Institute administers a university affiliates program that includes 17 major universities. The Institute’s
leadership development program prepares the next generation
of leaders to be effective in Aerospace’s changing environment.
The corporate library provides employees with an extensive
technical collection and access to numerous electronic sources.
The Aerospace Press publishes technical books and Crosslink, the
corporation’s technical magazine. Institute technical classes are
sought by, and offered to, external customers who support national security space.
Workforce development has become a corporation-wide
endeavor, as exemplified by the implementation in 2003 of a
new policy and associated practices for continuing learning and
knowledge sharing. Employees are strongly encouraged to pursue
at least 40 hours of learning activities each year to support their
performance improvement and career development objectives.
The Institute is the primary source for courses and multi­media
learning products, but other organizations also offer specialized
training and staff development activities. The Engineering and
Technology Group Tutorial Series is held monthly to spotlight
major areas of expertise within that group. Each 45-minute session introduces a subject and highlights activities of ETG experts
working in that area. “Our Place in Space” is a series of seminars
by technical staff that offer nontechnical staff insight into specific
satellite programs, launches, testing capabilities, and research
areas supported by the corporation. The Aerospace Rotation Program offers members of the technical staff an opportunity to take
an assignment for up to 12 months in another company organization primarily to develop their interorganizational knowledge;
personal careers; technical, leadership, and business skills; and
greater understanding of Aerospace’s customers.
Evans praised another Aerospace practice—mentoring—not
formally organized with standardized guidelines, but a traditional
part of the culture in organizations throughout the company.
Mentoring has also been a valuable activity of Aerospace’s retiree
casuals in their efforts to pass on corporate knowledge to younger
employees. Evans also is grateful to his own mentor, Paulikas, for
his guidance in helping shape his career at Aerospace. “I think
that’s one of the most effective ways to help our newer employees
understand how to do their job—how to make their contributions—because they have a personal coach or a mentor they
can turn to for advice. It’s basically a relationship between two
individuals that they build, and they make it work without any
structure required. It’s part of the environment at the corporation
where people are willing to help each other and take the time
to share what they know. I think that’s been a very important
­quality at Aerospace.”
Crosslink Spring 2007 • The State of the
National Security Space Workforce
The aerospace industry is bracing for a potential shortage of skilled engineers and
scientists able to work on national security space programs.
Patricia Maloney and Michael Leon
A
number of reports published during the last five
years have addressed the state of the space industrial base. These include findings by the Presidential
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry,
the Defense Science Board, the National Defense Industrial
Association, and the Defense Department. While differing
in intent, all of these reports point to shortages in skilled
U.S. engineers and scientists able to work on national security space programs now and in the near future.
Employment in the U.S. aerospace and defense industry
totaled 1.1 million in 1990 but dropped to 667,000 by 2000.
By the end of 2003, total domestic aerospace/defense employment was 584,000. This decline in the overall number of
employees is not the only issue—their age distribution is also
a concern. Although the aerospace and defense industry has
made a concerted effort to attract new employees, there is a
large gap in the 30–40-year-old range, where it is estimated
that supply is actually 29–46 percent below demand. These
are the people with theoretical as well as practical knowledge—the individuals who will be the program managers,
both in industry and on the government side in the next
6–10 years, and the concern is that there may not be enough
of them to fill vital positions.
Compounding the problem is the fact that much of the
aerospace and defense industry workforce is nearing or has
reached retirement age. According to the Aerospace Industries Association, the average aerospace/defense engineer in
the United States is nearly 60 years old. By 2008, approximately 27 percent of employed engineers will be eligible
for retirement, and during the next decade, the number of
employees with science and engineering degrees reaching
traditional retirement age will triple. This demographic shift
in the aerospace/defense population, coupled with increased
research, development, and procurement spending, has led
to the most fundamental industrial base concern for the
defense industry: a lack of skilled and experienced scientists
and engineers.
Parametric Analysis
Just how serious is the problem? To answer this question,
Aerospace developed an Excel-based parametric model that
forecasts the supply and demand of defense industry professionals and helps quantify the deficit of aerospace/defense
scientists and engineers. The model forecasts the number
of students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees
by using data from the National Science Foundation and
demographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau. It
computes the annual number of graduates with science and
engineering degrees, separating out non-U.S. citizens and
those who choose not to work in the defense industry. The
number of scientists and engineers is reduced by normal attrition for the forecasting, including voluntary and involuntary terminations, retirement, and mortality.
The number of engineering degrees conferred by U.S. universities was compared to national security budget data over
a 30-year period. The use of statistical regression techniques
produced a coefficient of determination of nearly 88 percent.
This relationship was used to forecast future demand, assuming that defense spending will remain stable, although
parametrically allowed to range between ± 5 percent of its
2003 value.
A 100,000-person sample simulation was performed
using the forecasting model. The results show a deficit of
defense industry scientists and engineers for each year beginning in 2005, extending through 2020. For example, in the
year 2012, the year in which the model predicts the greatest
deficit, there will be a shortage of more than 34,000 scientists and engineers. However, as the wave of retirements diminishes, this shortage is predicted to decrease by an average
annual rate of approximately 6 percent.
Possible Causes
In view of statistics such as these, members of the U.S. government and the aerospace and defense industry have raised
80
300
60
National
defense
spending
200
100
0
1950
1970
1990
Fiscal year
40
20
0
2010
50
75th percentile
mean
(50)
(100)
2005
Surplus
100
100
Deficit
400
120
Engineering
degrees
conferred by
U.S. colleges
Forecast surplus/deficit of scientists
and engineers (thousands)
Defense spending ($1000M)
500
Conferred degrees (thousands)
140
600
median
2010
2015
2020
Year
U.S. national defense spending and conferred engineering degrees.
concerns about the ability of the space
industrial base to execute the portfolio of
current and planned space programs. The
question that frequently arises is: Are there
sufficient programs in place to attract and
retain science and engineering talent in the
U.S. aerospace and defense industry?
The short answer would appear to be,
“No.” Several interrelated factors are involved in the failure to attract enough new
talent to the field—most notably, national
educational trends, the industry’s need for
uncommon technical skills, and competition with other technical fields.
Educational Trends
The demand for defense industry engineers
and scientists is based on a strong historical relationship between defense spending
and university enrollment in science and
engineering curricula. This relationship is
based in part on the government’s offering
of scholarships as well as the potential for
challenging and rewarding work following
graduation. From the mid-1970s through
the late 1990s, academic enrollment in
domestic engineering programs tracked
closely to the size of the national defense
budget. During this time, adjusted for inflation, defense spending grew from $86.5
billion to $252.7 billion. At the same time,
the annual number of engineering degrees
conferred by U.S. colleges increased from
approximately 65,000 in 1975 to 121,000
in 1985.
The defense budget was reduced at the
end of the Cold War, and the number of
graduating engineers fell to 104,000 by
2000. Today, engineering enrollment is at
best stagnant, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau. Although overall college attendance is increasing, the interest high school
The surplus/deficit of defense industry scientists and engineers (2005–2020).
seniors express in engineering has remained
flat in recent years.
Long-term trends show that fewer students are entering engineering programs.
From 1983 to 1990, engineering undergraduate enrollment decreased sharply,
followed by slower declines in the 1990s,
and increased again from 2000 to 2002.
At the bachelor’s degree level, undergraduate enrollment in engineering declined by
more than 20 percent in a 16-year period,
from 441,000 students in 1983, to 361,000
students in 1999, before rebounding to
421,000 in 2002.
The number of master’s degrees earned in
science and engineering by U.S. citizens and
permanent residents peaked in 1995 and
has since fallen an average of 5 percent per
year. Meanwhile, from 1983 to 1999, the
number of master’s degrees in these areas
completed by foreign students (who would
not be eligible for sensitive Department of
Defense work) increased at an average annual rate of nearly 5 percent. The number of
doctoral degrees earned in engineering by
U.S. citizens also increased rapidly for more
than a decade, peaked in 1996, and then
declined.
In-Demand Skills
Today, following a long plateau, the demand
for scientists and engineers in the aerospace and defense industries has never been
greater, as the inflation-adjusted dollars for
space acquisition (both in the unclassified
and classified realms) has increased over
the last 15 years. In addition, the cost and
complexity of space-related programs has
­increased, demanding more diverse engineering skill sets. It is estimated that the
space workforce supply has decreased by almost 30 percent over the last 25 years, while
the demand for design and development
work has risen by almost 60 percent, leaving
the United States with a severe supply/
demand gap in its space workforce.
What skills are most in demand and
highly sought in the engineering and science fields? Systems engineering and software engineering are two disciplines that
space prime contractors have designated
as critical skills areas, and the lack of these
skills is evident in every component of the
industrial base workforce. Also in demand
are skilled design, mechanical, electrical,
network, and radio-frequency engineers,
in addition to physicists, software systems
architects, and program managers. Manufacturing-related critical competencies have
also been identified, including the need for
skilled fabrication mechanics, tooling engineers, welders, test operators, and electromechanical technicians.
A close look at the economic landscape
is important in assessing the supply and
demand of scientists and engineers available to work on current and future national
security space programs. Three events are
of particular note: the stock market crashes
of 1997 and 2001 and the “dot-com” bust
of 2001. During this time, defense was
the only growing industrial area, and since
then, capital investment and growth have
been minimal in most other sectors. Most
aerospace companies report that they were
fortunate in that these forces contributed
to their current headcount—these crashes
actually led to gains in employees for the
defense industry. However, companies also
express concern that as the economy improves and the next new technology appears
on the horizon, they may lose this influx of
new talent.
In addition, many new space programs
demand functionality and a skill mix that
is forcing the space industry to compete for
Crosslink Spring 2007 • budget as a percentage of the entire defense
budget, and how that could affect the aerospace job market.
The U.S. government’s response to these
problems has been varied. The National Defense Education Act, originally instituted
in 1958 and reinstituted in 2006, awards
scholarships and grants to science and engineering students, with a requisite payback
period in government service. This reconstituted program was originally funded at
$10 million the first year, with an increase
to $20 million the second year. It is hoped
that this level of increase will continue until
$100 million is reached. This does appear
to be a strong force to begin addressing the
challenge of increasing the number of students with the appropriate degrees into the
industry.
Nevertheless, more needs to be done
at the 30–40-year-old range. These are
individuals who either left or never came
to the defense industry during the early
1990s. Attracting back these individuals
from alternate industries is the challenge for
the United States to meet in the next 5–10
years.
Mark Zakrzewski and Albert Lin prepare for spaceflight hardware testing.
talent in new areas—for example, in hiring
software or network engineers proficient in
Internet protocols needed for transformational communications.
Workforce Competition
Expanded military missions involving
global terrorism, homeland security, and
the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons will require innovative
technologies and the personnel to support
them. An aging fleet of military aircraft will
also necessitate the design and development
of new generations of fighters and bombers.
These are just a few of the work opportunities that are available within the defense
industry.
But for students graduating with degrees
in science or engineering, the opportunities
outside of the defense industry are plentiful. Military contractors must compete with
a myriad of manufacturing, technology,
service, and governmental organizations for
intellectual capital. Nanotechnology, bioengineering, genetic research, as well as diverse
careers in entertainment and telecommunications are enticing new graduates.
In addition, a decade of turmoil in the
aerospace and defense industry has tainted
the sector with a reputation of being unstable, dissuading potential employees from
entering the field. Second only to a career
• Crosslink Spring 2007
in medicine, engineering used to be the
degree parents most recommended to their
children. Evidence suggests that this is no
longer the case, and that parents are now
discouraging their children from entering
an industry that exhibits the volatility that
the aerospace and defense industry has
­witnessed.
Conclusion
The aerospace industry as a whole is making
a concerted effort to attract and retain new
graduates. This is evident in the targeting of
schools, through the establishment of programs that support research, pregraduation
internships, and mentoring activities once a
new hire is on the job. However, retention
is a major problem, as the attrition rate in
the 1–6 year range is approximately 2 times
greater in the aerospace industry than in the
overall new graduate population.
Industry surveys reveal that approximately half of the current workforce perceives a worsening outlook in the aerospace
industry because of the continuing retirement of scientists and engineers, and also
believes that the hiring outlook is getting
worse or steadily declining. Certainly, many
factors contribute to this view—the general economic outlook, questions by young
graduates about ethics in the defense industry, and the projected forecast of the space
Further Reading
“The Aerospace Commission Report” (Presidential Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry, Nov. 2002).
“The Budget for Fiscal Year 2005–Historical
Tables” (U.S. Office of Management and the
Budget, Washington, D.C., 2003).
“Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science and Engineering Education” (National Center for Educational Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington,
D.C., 2000).
“Final Report of the Defense Science Board
Task Force on Acquisition of National Security
Space Programs” (Defense Science Board, 2003).
The National Data Book, Statistical Abstract of the
United States 2002, 122nd Edition (U.S. Census
Bureau, Washington, D.C., 2002).
“Science and Engineering Indicators 2002” (National Science Board, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2002).
“Science and Engineering Indicators 2004” (National Science Board, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2004).
Space Industrial Base Panel Industry Study (National Defense Industrial Association, 2005).
Quadrennial Defense Review (Department of
Defense, Feb. 2006).
30
25
foreign students
20
15
10
U.S. citizens and
permanent residents
5
0
1979
1985
1989
Year
1993
1997
2000
Trends in engineering master’s degrees.
Engineering doctoral degrees (thousands)
Engineering master’s degrees (thousands)
35
7
6
5
4
foreign students
3
2
U.S. citizens and
permanent residents
1
0
1979
1985
1989
Year
1993
1997
2000
Trends in engineering doctoral degrees.
Who Will Lead in Science and Technology?
“…the nation is unlikely to receive some sudden
‘wake-up’ call…the problem is one that is likely to
evidence itself gradually over a surprisingly short
period.” —The National Academies
At the request of Congress, the Committee on Prospering in the Global
Economy of the 21st Century was established by The National Academies, and in February 2006 published, “Rising Above the Gathering
Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic
Future.”
This committee was tasked with identifying specific actions, strategies,
and steps that federal policymakers could take to ensure the United
States will maintain its edge in science and technology. Four areas of
focus were identified: actions in K–12 education, science and engineering research, higher education, and economic policy.
In the area of K–12 education, the recommendations included annually
recruiting 10,000 science and mathematics teachers by awarding 4-year
scholarships; strengthening the skills of 250,00 teachers through grants
for summer institutes and master’s education programs; and enlarging
the pipeline of students who are prepared to enter college and graduate
with a degree in science, engineering, or mathematics by increasing the
number of students who pass advanced placement courses.
Science and engineering research was targeted for increases in the federal investment in long-term basic research by 10 percent each year over
the next 7 years through the reallocation of existing funds or through the
investment of new funds. Also, the federal government should offer new
research grants of $500,000 annually, payable over 5 years, to 200 of
the nation’s most outstanding early-career researchers. Another endorsement included instituting a Presidential Innovation Award to stimulate
scientific and engineering advances in the national interest.
Higher education recommendations included increasing the number of
U.S. citizens who earn bachelor’s degrees in the physical sciences, life
sciences, engineering, and mathematics by providing 25,000 new 4year competitive undergraduate scholarships each year to U.S. citizens.
Also, increase the number of U.S. citizens pursuing graduate study in
“areas of national need” by funding 5,000 new graduate fellowships
each year. On the corporate side, offer a federal tax credit to encourage
employers to make continuing education available to practicing scientists
and engineers. It was also recommended that a 1-year automatic visa
extension be given to international students who receive doctorates in
fields of national need at qualified U.S. institutions. If these students are
offered jobs by U.S.-based employers and pass a security test, the government should provide automatic work permits and expedite residence
status.
Economic policy reform recommendations included enhancing intellectual-property protection while allowing research to enhance innovation.
Also, the government should enact a stronger research and development
tax credit to encourage private investment in innovation.
For the complete report and updates, visit www.nationalacademies.
org/gatheringstorm.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • A Corporate Approach to
National Security Space Education
The Aerospace approach to continuing learning draws upon the expertise of its
technical staff to present a flexible curriculum that can be tailored to the needs of a
diverse workforce.
Bruce Gardner
M
any corporations are placing stronger demands
on their in-house training and development
organizations to provide more cost-effective educational approaches that are tailored to the unique learning
needs of the national security space workforce. In particular,
educational approaches are sought that effectively exploit
the knowledge and experience of in-house engineering and
scientific staff.
At The Aerospace Corporation, an integrated approach to
space education has been developed for the design, delivery,
and exploitation of in-house learning opportunities and resources supporting the corporation’s engineers and scientists
in addition to Aerospace customers and the broader national
security space community.
Background, Drivers, and General Approach
Prior to 1994, the corporation’s resources for formal training
and education consisted of three primary elements: educational assistance for courses and degree programs at local
universities; funding to attend professional conferences and
workshops; and a small curriculum of in-house courses on
specific technologies and professional skills.
The technical courses were taught by Aerospace engineers
and scientists with a desire to share their expertise. Nontechnical classes, provided primarily by external vendors, emphasized the development of specific behavioral skills.
Until the mid-1990s, this approach was considered adequate; however, with the tightening of the defense budget,
the advent of acquisition reform, and the increasing pace of
senior retirements at the corporation, it was clear that a new
approach would be needed. In particular, the corporation
faced a growing need for employees who could identify and
resolve complex, multidisciplinary systems issues beyond
their particular area of technical expertise.
In 1994, the corporation established The Aerospace Institute to develop more effective ways of enhancing systems
engineering skills throughout the technical workforce. Key
aspects of the Institute’s strategy were to promote the capture and sharing of existing cross-program knowledge, to introduce new ideas and approaches learned from the broader
space industry and academic communities, and to develop a
more systematic corporate approach for providing continuing space education for Aerospace personnel as well as the
broader space community.
This third element has been addressed through the development and implementation of an integrated Space
Education Support System (SESS). Through the years, this
systematic approach to space education curriculum development and delivery has helped ensure proper alignment of
in-house learning programs and resources with key corporate commitments and the unique educational needs of individual space professionals.
The Learning Curriculum
The core of the Space Education Support System is the
learning curriculum. It features more than 100 individual
courses organized into specialized continuing learning tracks
to accommodate gradual employee development along a
variety of potential career paths. These include the Corporate
Business Orientation track, the Technical Orientation track,
the Technical Specialty track, and the Critical Leadership/
Behavioral Skills track. These tracks are further augmented
by a number of corporate development programs targeting
specific segments of the employee population.
Business and Technical Orientation
Soon after joining the corporation, a new engineer or scientist is encouraged to participate in the Corporate Business Orientation track by attending the one-day “Learning
the Culture of Aerospace” course, which presents senior
management perspectives and expectations concerning the
corporation’s core values, organizational vs. personal accountability, job performance, and career progression. The
track continues with the three-day “Learning the Business of
Aerospace” course, which provides a comprehensive overview of the corporation, its
mission, its major business units, and supporting processes. Employees typically take
this course within their first year. It features
presentations by corporate executives and
includes guided tours of the engineering
and research laboratories.
After attending these two courses, engineers and scientists may take courses in the
Technical Orientation track, which features
a series of two-day technical overviews of the
major satellite, launch, and ground systems
that Aerospace supports as well as a oneday overview of systems acquisition, which
describes the processes and organizational
structures that control how national security
space systems are procured and deployed.
Technical Specialty and
Leadership Skills
After completing the business overview
and the technical orientation courses, staff
members can move on to individual courses
in the Technical Specialty or Critical Leadership/Behavioral Skills tracks. They may
also choose to participate in one of the corporate development programs.
The Technical Specialty track targets engineers and scientists who wish to increase
their understanding of new developments
in their field of expertise or a related field
of interest. It features more than 50 courses
developed and taught by more than 280
senior Aerospace engineers, scientists, and
program managers. The track is continuously updated to ensure that topics and
content meet employee needs. It includes
a number of short courses attended by senior Aerospace employees and customers.
These cover a wide range of diverse topics of
high interest to the national security space
enterprise, such as system procurement,
modeling and simulation, evolutionary
computation, deception and denial, synthetic aperture radar, spread-spectrum communications, and others.
The Critical Leadership/Behavioral
Skills track features courses taught by external vendors and experienced in-house
technical staff that develop interpersonal
and teaming skills and approaches found to
be effective in working with customers at
all levels. These include courses on critical
thinking and decision making, influencing
and negotiating, managing conflict, and presenting critical issues to senior management.
Corporate Development Programs
Three major programs—the Aerospace Systems Architecting and Engineering Certificate Program, the Aerospace Rotation
Job skill-needs
surveys/learning
maps
Senior management
educational advisory
panel
SESS
Learning Curriculum
– Continuing learning tracks
– Corporate development programs
– Customer programs
Multimedia/
e-learning
support resources
Instructional
design/delivery
teams
Aerospace
problem-solving
methods and tools
Relevant Aerospace
case studies
The learning curriculum forms the core of the Space Education Support System (SESS). It is continuously updated and enhanced based on inputs from corporate critical-skill-need surveys and the senior management
advisory panel. The instructional design and delivery teams draw upon corporately sanctioned tools and methods, real case studies, and multimedia/e-learning resources to develop and deliver highly relevant instruction
via classroom or computer to employees at all Aerospace locations.
Program, and the Corporate Leadership
Program—are structured to develop critical
core competencies, promote career growth,
and prepare individuals for potential future
roles in corporate management and technical leadership. They feature highly structured classroom learning and networking
activities closely integrated with mentored,
on-the-job development experiences sponsored and directed at the corporate level.
The Aerospace Systems Architecting
and Engineering Certificate Program is
the primary corporate educational vehicle
for teaching critical cross-program systems knowledge and lessons learned. It
is designed to promote awareness of the
wide variety of technical roles that Aero-
space performs and to develop a strong
­contingent of Aerospace employees with
the broad systems-level perspective and
skills needed to provide technical leadership within the national security space
community. This program begins with a
four-day introductory course focusing on
Aerospace’s roles and capabilities in systems
architecting, engineering, and acquisition
management. Those who wish to develop
greater capabilities in one or more of these
disciplines enter the “knowledge-building”
segment, which begins with a four-day
course that teaches how to work effectively
on technical teams with customers and contractors. Next, students select one of three
120-hour programs designed to develop
Corporate business
orientation
track
Technical orientation track
Technical
specialty
track
Corporate development
programs
– Aerospace SA/SE
certificate program
– Aerospace Rotation Program
– Corporate leadership programs
Leadership/
behavioral skills
track
The learning curriculum begins with a broad business overview, followed by a more focused orientation to the
technical aspects of major national security space and acquisition support systems. After completing these
two tracks, students can delve deeper into technical specialties, develop the behaviors required for effective
project and team leadership, or participate in one of the corporate development programs.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 11
Top Lessons Learned
The experience of developing and implementing the Space Education Support System at
Aerospace has taught valuable lessons that may well apply to any corporately sponsored
in-house space educational program. Here are some of the more important lessons.
Base it on real needs. Ensure that all learning objectives, themes, and content are
clearly expressed and well aligned with the real day-to-day needs of employees as well
as with the overall strategic mission and direction of the corporation. Avoid stuffing the
curriculum with overly theoretical or esoteric material that is peripheral to practical job
requirements.
Make it personal. Provide multiple learning paths aligned with different types of job
assignments and career paths. Be sure to include options for technical specialists wishing
to broaden their systems perspective and skills for handling complex, multidisciplinary systems issues. This helps develop a more flexible workforce capable of adapting to changing
business requirements.
Provide course materials that are relevant, accurate, current, and interesting. Employ a variety of techniques that cater to diverse learning styles—examples,
case studies, news, history, data trends, videotapes, etc.
Provide incentives. Official certification in systems architecting and engineering has
proven to be a strong motivator for participation and provides graduates with a sense of
accomplishing something that the corporation values. The staff certification also enhances
the corporation’s reputation with customers, potential new hires, and the broader space
community.
Explain the program value to its sponsor. Avoid overly complicated quantitative
formulas for value metrics and get to the essence of what would be important to those who
are funding the program.
Use simplified versions of corporately approved processes to design
course elements. If none exists, put together a cross-organizational team to develop
one for tutorial purposes and to suggest potential applications beyond the classroom.
Use relevant case studies. Make sure that at least some of the case studies reflect
actual job responsibilities and require students to apply the full range of newly acquired
skills. Generic case studies to illustrate specific points are fine, but don’t stop there. Keep
the case studies current and meaningful.
Don’t forsake the classroom for the computer. Look for opportunities to achieve
the best of both worlds. The networking aspect of classroom participation is too valuable
to dismiss, while self-paced computer-based modules can be effective in preparing for and
reinforcing the classroom experience.
Choose the right person to head the course design team. Look for people
who are credible. Don’t expect people with strong training knowledge but no technical
background to fulfill this function naturally.
Involve corporate customers. When customers attend classes, they gain a better
understanding of the corporation’s capabilities and create opportunities for new business.
In addition, by sharing with instructors and other students their top priorities, customers
can provide some of the most valuable feedback on whether courses are addressing their
most critical needs.
Involve senior management. Personal involvement with students and instructors will
give senior management the best sense of program effectiveness and value.
Don’t put all the corporation’s educational eggs in one basket. Ensure that
funding for in-house training is balanced by funding to support conference attendance,
participation in university programs, and participation in external seminars.
12 • Crosslink Spring 2007
skills in applying Aerospace methodologies, tools, and resources to the three major
­systems disciplines: systems architecting,
space systems engineering, and acquisition
management. The final phase of the certificate program is the professional development segment, which features a one- to
two-year on-the-job training assignment
under the mentorship of a senior Aerospace
program office or engineering group manager. Employees who complete all requisite
coursework and mentored assignments
and deliver a final presentation to a senior
executive review committee are awarded the
“Aerospace Systems Architect-Engineer”
certificate. Since program inception, more
than 1200 technical employees have participated in this program, 225 have completed
at least one of the major curriculum tracks,
and 26 have been awarded the certificate.
The Aerospace Rotation Program gives
employees the opportunity to broaden their
knowledge of company operations through
temporary assignments in other departments. The long-term goals are to foster
closer communication among the technical
organizations, to enhance the technical and
business skills of program participants, and
to expand the corporation’s career development options. The Aerospace Rotation
Program creates temporary positions in all
technical areas. Members of the technical
staff may apply for an assignment for up
to 12 months with the full assurance that
upon completion, they may return to their
original organization and position level.
The Institute works with the Human Resources department to provide orientation,
courses, coaching, and Web resources to
prepare participants and their supervisors
and to reinforce learning and development
throughout the entire program. Currently,
29 employees are participating.
Corporate leadership programs include
TIER (Teamwork, Innovation, Excellence,
and Resources) and the Leadership Development Program. TIER, which targets
midlevel directors, provides opportunities
for collaboration and networking with
executive managers and helps develop the
behavioral competencies needed to function
effectively in a dual role as an organization
manager and technical project leader. The
Leadership Development Program prepares
upper-level directors and technical staff
for executive positions by presenting them
with complex corporate strategic issues to
be worked in teams advised by senior executives and external consultants. Several
of the projects undertaken in this program
have led to recommendations for corporate
change and contingency planning that have
Initial
awareness
Core Course:
Aerospace Roles in
Space Systems Architecting,
Acquisition, and Engineering
(4 days)
curriculum design and guide employee selection of specific classroom experiences.
In-depth knowledge
and basic skills
Teaming for Systems Architects and Engineers Course
(3 days)
Systems
Architects
Aerospace Systems
Architecting
Program
(ASAP)
(4 weeks)
Experience and
skills-building
Systems
Engineers
Space Systems
Engineering
Program
(SSEP)
(4 weeks)
Program
Managers
Space Systems
Acquisition
Management Program
(SSAMP)
(4 weeks)
ASAECP Internship Program
(1-year minimum)
The Aerospace Systems Architecting and Engineering Certificate Program (ASAECP) is designed to impart the
broad systems-level perspective and skills needed to provide technical leadership within the national security
space community. More than 1200 technical employees have participated in this program, 225 have completed at least one of the major curriculum tracks, and 26 have been awarded the certificate.
supported executive management decisions. To date, more than 120 midlevel and
­upper-level managers have participated in
these two programs, many of whom subsequently achieved career promotions.
Classes for Aerospace Customers
The Space Education Support System
learning curriculum also includes a number of programs that are made available to
and, in some cases, tailored to the needs of
government customers and support personnel in the defense, intelligence, and civil
space sectors. Up to 20 percent of seating
capacity for all courses is initially reserved
for government customers at no charge.
Unused customer seats are released for
employee participation. The Space Systems
Acquisition Management Program, part of
the Aerospace Systems Architecting and
Engineering Certificate Program, includes
courses of benefit to newly hired personnel
in customer program offices and is offered
in-house annually.
While the Institute regularly schedules
courses at primary corporate locations,
customers at other locations often request
special offerings to meet a specific need.
Upon request, the Institute clears for public
release a selected subset of courses for the
general public. These enable contractors,
professional society members, and others to
participate individually or as teams along
with Aerospace and government staff.
The participation of government and
contractor personnel in the Aerospace educational program has proven beneficial in
three major ways. First, Aerospace engineers
and scientists gain a better understanding of
the technical and programmatic underpinnings of the missions they support, enabling
them to make better decisions on central
issues. Second, customers learn about the
capabilities of Aerospace and the best way
to use these resources to help them perform
their missions. Third, the instructors and
students from Aerospace get a chance to
showcase their talents and make networking connections.
Developing the Curriculum
The learning curriculum represents the
most visible part of the Space Education
Support System, but its success depends
on the efforts of critical support groups
working behind the scenes to ensure the
consistent delivery of useful educational
material. Foremost among these are the
senior management advisory panel and the
instructional design teams. Also crucial
are the proven Aerospace problem-solving methods and relevant case studies that
make the educational experience memorable and applicable. Rounding out the support network are the multimedia/e-learning
support resources, job skill-need surveys,
and learning maps that help to validate the
Senior Management
Educational Advisory Panel
One of the most important elements of
learning curriculum support is the advisory
team, consisting of general managers from
each major business unit and senior vice
presidents from the engineering and program groups. Semiannually, Institute management and the technical design coordinators meet with this team to review overall
objectives and assess progress and accomplishments. One major function of the
advisory team is to help ensure that courses
are aligned with emerging business trends
as well as corporate needs and initiatives.
A second function is to help establish numerical goals for course participation across
the company based on demographics and
customer needs. The third major function
is to review the career progress of program
graduates and help place them in areas
where their new skills can be best used.
Course Design Teams
One of Aerospace’s unique strengths is
the extensive technical knowledge and
cross-program experience of its engineers
and scientists. A primary challenge faced
by the Institute in developing new courses
involved devising a structure that would
focus the talents of these technical specialists into a cohesive set of learning objectives
and themes. Rather than rely on the efforts
of individuals to develop and teach entire
courses, the Institute implemented a teambased approach that takes advantage of the
backgrounds and capabilities of numerous
contributors.
Each year, more than 280 Aerospace
engineers and scientists across the nation
help design and deliver portions of the basic
curriculum. More than 10 engineers and
scientists from multiple sites are typically
involved in designing and teaching the major courses in the systems architecting certificate program. The lead course designer,
who may be either an Institute staff member or senior engineer or scientist, is responsible for gathering a team of subject matter
experts and working with them to ensure
that clear learning objectives are established
and that key learning themes are reinforced
throughout the course.
In addition to helping ensure the development of high-quality technical courses,
the team-based approach has resulted in a
number of significant benefits. For example,
it has helped define a corporately approved
technical approach or position on important
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 13
Example: Theater Missile Defense System
(Case Study for Space Systems Engineering Program)
Early warning
satellite
Communication
relay satellite
Concept development
• System requirements
• Feasibility design
System design
• Spacecraft requirements
• Conceptual design
Early warning
processing
center
Theater
operations
center
Interceptors
Weapon targeting radar
Realistic case studies employing proven problem-solving methods enhance the
classroom experience and reinforce core lessons. This theater missile defense case
issues. It has fostered a corporate network
of experts in key technical subjects. It has
improved collaboration amongst organizations participating on the teams. It has also
enlarged the pool of potential instructors
capable of delivering the core set of course
material at multiple Aerospace sites.
Problem-Solving Methods and Tools
Students have indicated that some of the
most helpful tutorial devices employed in
the learning curriculum are the exercises
and case studies that use Aerospace­developed problem-solving methods and
tools. In addition to providing a tutorial
focal point for overall course design, these
methods and tools are often used by participants in their jobs after completing the
class. For example, “Aerospace Systems
Architecting Methodology” provides a
framework for helping students learn how
to work with customers to define needs and
explore potential architectural approaches to
complex, unstructured systems of systems.
The methodology and tools associated
with Aerospace’s Concept Design Center
are taught extensively within the space
systems engineering track to help students
learn how to participate effectively in space
system design synthesis and tradeoff studies.
Systems acquisition management courses
introduce state-of-the-art methods and
tools that many Aerospace technical employees have found helpful in addressing
program acquisition planning and execution
issues associated with requirements generation, risk management, test management,
and cost and schedule engineering. To reinforce the strategies introduced in the teaming course, instructors developed a “team
14 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Space Systems Life Cycle
System development,
integration, and test
• Manufacturing design
• Development test
Threat missiles
System operations
• Launch and deployment
• On-orbit operations
study was used to give students practice in exercising space systems engineering
methods and tools over the entire range of the system acquisition life cycle.
map” to provide a mental model or frame of
reference for assembling and directing project teams and evaluating their effectiveness.
Relevant Case Studies
The use of case studies that students can
personally relate to has significantly enhanced the credibility of courses in the
systems engineering certificate program and
has made a significant difference in participant enthusiasm and receptiveness. For example, the Aerospace Systems Architecting
Program employs two central case studies
that provide a staged learning experience,
from well structured to unstructured. This
helps to separate basic and advanced process
issues and facilitates evaluation of student
progress. In the second case study, students
investigate the development of a tactical
communications architecture to support
nation-building and peacekeeping operations in the period from 2005 to 2015. The
Space Systems Engineering Program employs a realistic theater missile defense
system case-study designed to provide
students with experience in exercising key
systems engineering methods over the
complete system acquisition life cycle. Case
studies for the Space System Acquisition
Management Program are revised each year
based on actual experiences to illustrate how
acquisition programs differing significantly
in scope have effectively addressed each of
the major program management disciplines.
Multimedia Support Resources
One major challenge associated with implementing the educational curriculum on a
corporation-wide basis was how to deliver
useful content from classes taught in
El Segundo, California, to employees in regional ­offices. A related challenge was how
to package lectures and related information
in an accessible Web format that could
be used by instructors during class and by
course graduates afterward. To address these
issues, the Institute uses three multimedia/
e-learning support resources.
The first is the electronic classroom,
which uses laptop computers instead of
paper notebooks to store and display course
materials at each student’s seat. This permits
greater student interaction and is especially
useful for modules involving exercises or
practice with software tools. The second
resource is the server-based electronic storage area for course materials and references.
Traditional course books grow stale after
the class is over, but this corporately accessible electronic repository allows materials
to be continuously updated. The third resource is a Web-enabled capability supporting real-time broadcast from the classroom
to remote locations along with recording
of class sessions. While the live sessions
represent a new opportunity for distance
learning, the recording function has been
much more thoroughly exploited. It allowed
for development of a process that combines
course materials with recorded class sessions
into a variety of formats that can be used
by employees whenever convenient. This
process was piloted in September 2003,
capturing 24 sessions of the “Launch Vehicles Overview” course in two days. Since
that time, more than 20 courses have been
recorded and are now available to employees via the corporation’s internal network or
on CD-ROM.
Many of Aerospace’s course materials are made available to employees in several multimedia formats. Here,
Fong Tien reviews slides and notes from the Space Environment and Spacecraft Environmental Hazards course,
conveniently presented in a user-friendly e-learning format.
Job Skill-Need Surveys/Learning Maps
Given the exceptionally broad range and
technical complexity of engineering and scientific jobs that Aerospace performs, it is vital that the learning themes, objectives, and
content for all major curriculum elements
be well aligned with the key employee skills
needed to execute these jobs effectively.
The Aerospace Institute employs a variety of mechanisms for identifying and
analyzing the critical competencies needed
for major Aerospace job categories. These
include individual employee suggestions;
course evaluations and feedback; corporate
strategic initiative briefings and recommendations from related virtual communities of
practice; customer interactions; and special
requests from senior management, corporate advisory groups, and Aerospace service
organizations. Periodically (e.g., every 2
to 3 years), the Institute conducts formal
Web-based surveys and follow-up interviews with executives, mid-level managers,
and the general employee population. Data
collected from these sources are used to
determine and prioritize annual course-enhancement and new development efforts. In
addition, the data are used to create “learning maps” that tie specific competencies for
a given job or career stage to the available
courses and electronic learning resources.
The Institute’s career learning support site
conveniently groups course descriptions and
schedules based on three different career
stages and employee development needs:
performance enhancement tied to annual
appraisals; major job transitions within the
company; and general growth and development within a chosen career path.
For major corporate development
programs such as the Aerospace Systems
Architecting and Engineering Certificate
Program that are focused on specific technical employee populations, the Institute will
typically conduct a more extensive survey
involving a corporation-wide sampling of
employees at various customer sites. The
intent is to identify and prioritize a limited
set of clearly articulated core competencies
(no more than 10) that will form the basis
for subsequent curriculum structuring and
design of educational objectives. For example, a recent survey distributed to more
than 180 alumni of the Aerospace Systems
Architecting and Engineering Certificate
Program showed that the skills needed to
support customer systems architecting activities varied depending on whether that
support is delivered in the form of systems
analysis, project leadership, or line management of an Aerospace engineering support
organization. Results from this survey led to
an extensive modification of the certificate
program curriculum, significantly improving its structure and focus (as evidenced by
recent participant evaluations).
Effectiveness and Value
Attempts to systematically assess the effectiveness and value of the learning curriculum have been made at several levels by
the Institute over the past several years. For
example, a comparison of actual attendance
with goals and projections indicates that all
major elements are well attended and that
employee participation has risen dramatically (e.g., more than 3500 enrollments in
2006 vs. fewer than 500 prior to 1995). In
addition, student ratings show significant
improvements in perceived course quality
and utility as the experience of instructors
has increased. These ratings provide a rough
measure of course content value and the effectiveness of the course design approach.
Even more indicative are the results of
a survey sent out to more than 100 graduates of the four-week classroom segments
of the space systems architecting and space
systems engineering certificate paths. More
than 80 percent of respondents indicated
that customers had noticed a measurable,
positive effect of student learning on their
decisions or approach to addressing key
program issues. Nearly 50 percent reported
that participation in the classes had helped
them achieve a promotion or expanded job
assignment. Nearly 90 percent indicated
that course concepts, methods, processes,
and tools were being applied directly to
their job. Also, 75 percent reported significant improvements in their personal networking and use of company resources as a
result of their participation in the program.
On a more general qualitative basis, comments on student evaluations and corporate
surveys reinforce the notion that in-house
technical education, designed to make
use of expertise and experience within the
company, is being received more favorably
and considered more economical than an
educational approach that relies primarily
on external providers.
Future Directions
The near-term focus for the Space Education Support System is on four primary
areas. The first entails modifying the learning curriculum objectives and content to
reflect new developments in space systems
acquisition policy, particularly in regard to
recent changes in Aerospace positioning
within the Department of Defense and
intelligence community reporting chain
and the accompanying development of
new expectations related to corporate and
personal accountabilities. The second is
increasing the desktop accessibility and
capability for capture and editing of courses
that are taught at corporate headquarters in
El Segundo and delivered to engineers and
scientists at regional sites. The third is continuing to improve the corporate use of program graduates and enhancing the metrics
by which program effectiveness and value
is assessed. The last involves applying the
approaches and methodologies developed
for the Space Education Support System to
support broader efforts to revitalize systems
engineering throughout the national security space community.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 15
Work Studies (part 1 of 4)
Aerospace personnel at all stages of their careers
share a commitment to professional ­development.
David Glackin
Gary Stupian
Remote sensing scientist and solar astronomer David Glackin is author of Civil, Commercial, and International Remote Sensing Systems
and Geoprocessing, published by The Aerospace Press. He wrote the
book “to fill a need to provide this information to the community in a
clear, concise format in which it has never been presented before. It
was intended partly for seasoned practitioners in need of an accurate
and comprehensive summary of the field.” Copublished with AIAA, the
book has been well received by the remote sensing community.
Glackin, senior engineering specialist in the Sensing and Exploitation Department, came to Aerospace in 1986 to work on the next-generation Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, now subsumed into
the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS). Today, he works primarily with the science and technology of Earth environmental remote sensing and solar astronomy. “A
typical day might involve thinking, writing, managing a small team of
Aerospace specialists, perhaps a meeting or telecon, and interacting
with various customers and members of the external community from
government, industry and academia,” he said.
He values Aerospace for the work he does and the colleagues he
does it with. “I find that the greatest reward is the ability to work on a
wide range of interesting problems in my chosen fields, and to keep
learning new things. Equally rewarding is the ability to work with the
outstanding, stimulating people at Aerospace, in an atmosphere of
community and collegiality.” He said his greatest challenge has been
“juggling too many interesting projects while satisfying all of my customers and meeting deadlines with very high quality,” he said. In the future,
when times are very busy he fears he will find it difficult “to hand off to
others some of the interesting work that comes across my desk.”
The variety of his responsibilities include
supporting the NPOESS program in strategic
planning, requirements, instrument development, and science algorithms as well as ­solar
physics instruments for the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOESR) program. He also maintains cognizance
of the environmental remote sensing plans
of every nation for the corporation. He has
done substantial work in strategic planning
for NASA HQ and JPL.
Glackin regularly presents papers at professional meetings and conferences. “Papers have been invaluable insofar as corporate recognition, making professionally useful contacts, staying on the cutting edge
of my fields, and fostering relationships that have led to new business
for the corporation. I have found that many conference attendees really
don’t know what Aerospace is all about, and generally express a lot
of interest when I tell them. I’ve recruited people at conferences who
are now valuable members of the Aerospace staff. As for the industry
overall, it is important to share ideas. It’s amazing what results can accrue serendipitously.”
He has taught several classes in the Institute programs. “I enjoy
teaching immensely, and value the opportunity that the Institute has
presented. It’s nice to be in a room full of people who really want to be
there and who ask penetrating questions. My teaching experience has
made me better at mentoring younger staff members,” he said.
Gary Stupian, a distinguished scientist in the Microelectronics Technology Department, has been with Laboratory Operations since he
came to Aerospace in 1969. During that time, he has worked on many
aspects of surface science, concentrating for the past 20 years on root
cause analysis, the systematic investigation into a problem or an anomaly to find the underlying physical cause in order to fix it and to prevent
its recurrence. His work in the area of reliability and root cause of reliability problems earned him the Aerospace President’s Distinguished
Achievement Award in 1994.
“Root cause analysis covers all programs,” Stupian said of its importance in space systems development. “Space programs do have problems with failures. The whole spacecraft is the
sum of its component parts, and components
do break. There is a difficulty in space in that
nothing is really reparable. So you have to
ensure that the reliability of everything that
goes into the spacecraft is very high. That’s
what we do—myself and other people in the
labs.”
Considered by his colleagues to be a
leading authority in this discipline, Stupian unassumingly attributes his lengthy tenure and
experience with the company: “I’ve been
here a long time, and I’ve been involved in a good many of the critical investigations. Sometimes failures are very routine, but not always.
The ones that are not totally routine are somewhat more interesting, as
a rule, but you have to look at everything. So I’ve looked at a lot of
different things, and I’ve had a lot of experience.” His three academic
degrees are in physics (with a specialization in condensed-matter physics): B.S. from Caltech and M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Illinois
at Urbana/Champaign.
Stupian also credits the work of his coworkers—“the colleagues in
the labs with whom I have worked so closely over the years. The work
is technically challenging. Root cause analyses eventually involve the
application of essentially every scientific discipline that one has studied.
It’s hard to know everything, and there are a lot of experts at Aerospace, and the key is to consult with them when you have a problem.
That’s part of what you learn when you’re here—who to go to when you
need help.”
He regularly publishes in scientific journals and spends much of his
little free time reading scientific literature to keep up with developments
in physics outside his area of concentration. Opportunities to do research is why he chose a career at Aerospace. “Aerospace has always
stressed research even in very lean times. It is one of the few places
where you actually have the possibility to do research.”
Root cause analysis occupies most of his time, but he is also interested in forensic science. “I was the first to look at the isotopic composition of bullet lead. I’ve been involved in a couple of murder cases. I’ve
worked with coroners’ investigators on a ‘cold case’ murder using x-ray
computed tomography to examine the vertebra of a murder victim. I’ve
x-rayed some tires for the highway patrol.” He helps young scientists
and recruits them to Aerospace through his work with the corporation’s
university affiliates program. As the technical liaison between Aerospace and Caltech, he identifies sponsors from across Aerospace who
work with six undergraduate research fellows and their faculty advisors
each summer.
More “Work Studies,” p. 21
Building and Sustaining Strong
College and University Relationships
The Corporate University Affiliates Program introduces students
to Aerospace early in their academic careers.
Marian Peebles, Peggy Zweben, Sergio Alvarado, Joseph Betser,
Samuel Osofsky, Karen Owens, and Gary Stupian
T
he national security space community strives to acquire, develop, and maintain a workforce that has the
critical skills and capabilities needed for dealing with
complex space systems. Aerospace, along with the government, the military, and commercial contractors, must explore
how best to meet this challenge.
The process of developing the corporation’s next­generation workforce begins with making sure that among
the people entering the overall workforce a pipeline exists of
potential recruits who can meet the critical skill needs of the
corporation and its customers. This effort is partially accomplished through nurturing ongoing scholarly and professional
relationships with top colleges and universities across the
United States.
As a technical research organization, Aerospace has developed strong ties with the academic community. Through
both formal and informal associations, it has created unique
partnerships with faculty and students at many of the nation’s
most highly regarded engineering and science schools.
Though the relationships differ, they share a goal: to foster
mutually beneficial opportunities for knowledge sharing and
the exchange of technical information.
To manage these ties and create strong technical relationships, expertise, and research, in 1997 Aerospace initiated the
Corporate University Affiliates Program (CUAP). The program serves as a mechanism for fostering partnerships among
Aerospace technical staff and college and university faculty
and students.
Skills of special interest that are related to Aerospace’s
work in national security space include those needed for mastery of a variety of subjects: photonics, electro-optics, and sensor design; nonlinear electronics, communication electronics,
and information systems and software engineering; GPS and
navigation and control; structures, composites, aerodynamics,
and fluid mechanics; and networked systems, cost modeling,
process improvement, and space policy. Students working in
target disciplines related to these subjects are identified early
in their academic careers through CUAP activities.
In addition, Aerospace acknowledges that it has a community responsibility to support outstanding colleges and
universities in its own “neighborhood.” Thus, one of CUAP’s
priorities is to recognize academic institutions physically situated near the corporation’s laboratories and offices.
CUAP is an important recruiting tool. Its affiliations
complement Aerospace’s college recruitment and summer
hire programs by inviting students to actively participate
in ­Aerospace-supported projects, design competitions, and
awards; guest lecture and dinner seminar series; academic
societies and publications; alumni outreach; career fairs, open
houses, and site visits; and workshops and symposia.
The Aerospace Institute is responsible for the administration and oversight of CUAP in coordination with the Human
Resources Directorate and the Engineering and Technology
Group. This collaboration has developed strong internal operating relationships.
How the Program Works
CUAP has 17 affiliations with institutions in five states and
the District of Columbia. Each affiliation has a purpose and
established objectives geared to the capabilities and strengths
of its school or academic department. CUAP workforce
development efforts are well established within a number
of these affiliations, as illustrated by the following program
­descriptions.
Through CUAP, Aerospace establishes formal agreements
with schools or academic departments to accomplish specific
technical tasks and identify research projects in areas of crucial interest to the corporation. Criteria for a school’s participation include its ability to address the corporation’s critical
skill needs.
CUAP Affiliates
California Institute of Technology
Aerospace’s affiliation with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is a
­campus-wide program not limited to a specific area of science or engineering or to a
specific university department. Caltech students work with the latest technology developments, so they can readily understand
the corporation’s need to keep abreast of
advances in science and engineering. Many
of the participating students, who are highly
motivated to succeed in their chosen fields,
become prospective future employees.
Caltech’s long-established and very popular Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) program affords students
the opportunity to do research in many
technical areas in which Aerospace has
traditionally maintained an interest: electronics, mechanics, and materials science.
However, with the growing importance of
new technologies for both national security
and space exploration, that list has grown
to include biophysics, geology, ecology,
information sciences, nanotechnology, and
­robotics—disciplines that were not necessarily on Aerospace’s radar in the past.
In the SURF program, Caltech students
work with faculty mentors on campus
during a 10-week period in the summer,
and Aerospace employees meet informally
with students during that time. In the fall,
Aerospace employees attend the students’
presentations of their research findings.
The students are then invited to Aerospace
to deliver their presentations and tour the
facility. Aerospace employees have an opportunity to meet the next generation of
science and engineering students while the
students get an introduction to the corporation. Two Caltech students sponsored in
summer 2005 became interns at Aerospace
in summer 2006.
Aerospace’s name recognition on the
Caltech campus is important for the
corporation’s recruiting goals. Thanks to
CUAP, that name recognition is increasing.
Students at Caltech often go on to graduate
school, where they may speak of their experiences with CUAP and Aerospace with
students both at Caltech and at other institutions. Aerospace frequently hires people
with advanced degrees, so name recognition
in the graduate school environment is important. When graduate students previously
sponsored through CUAP complete their
education, the corporation may encounter
them again as they search for full-time
positions. Some will undoubtedly decide to
pursue their career goals at Aerospace.
18 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Harvey Mudd College’s
Computer Science Clinic
Harvey Mudd College’s
Computer Science Clinic
began in 1993 and has
grown from a single, narrowly focused project to a
group of broad, multidisciplinary projects involving
many organizations at the
college and at Aerospace.
Having developed such a
Janet Sheung, a senior at Caltech and a participant of Caltech’s Summer
Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program, presents the results of her
strong relationship with
research.
Harvey Mudd, the corporation now assists with
governance and strategic
planning at the college.
Aerospace employees serve
on multiple committees,
helping to shape the curriculum to address the
future technical needs of
the nation and introducing such new topics as
biometrics, grid computing, network management
and information assurance,
launch telemetry processPaul Anderson shows Daniel Thai around the computer simulation
ing, vibroacoustics, orbital
laboratory at Aerospace. Thai is a participant of Caltech’s Summer Under­
analysis, and Internet stangraduate Research Fellowship program.
dardization via the Internet
Engineering Task Force
challenges in both computer science and
(the international community of network
engineering for the students and the Aerodesigners, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the protocols and opera- space employees.
During the past decade, Aerospace has
tional characteristics of the Internet).
recruited
more than 30 employees from
The Harvey Mudd Computer Science
Harvey
Mudd—12
new employees in
Clinic began within the Computers and
2005 and 2006 alone—including students,
Software Division (CSD) with a focus on
graduates, professors, and industry peers.
research projects such as supercomputing
This was accomplished by participating
visualizations in support of aerospace inin on-campus recruitment, as well as via
dustry research and development and work
word of mouth by Aerospace employees
with the Defense Advanced Research Projwho referred other strong candidates to the
ects Agency, including the decentralizedcompany.
network management project. The scope of
The Aerospace Ambassador Program
the projects expanded in size and technistarted
when a Harvey Mudd summer
cal breadth over time to include a broad
intern
(now
a doctoral student at UCLA)
spectrum of concepts and systems, such as
referred
to
Aerospace
three other graduVISPERS (Vibroacoustic Intelligent Sysate
students
from
the
top
of the class in
tem for Prediction of Environments Reliboth
mathematics
and
computer
science.
ability and Specification).
The
program
is
designed
so
that
Aerospace
These advanced projects involved mulrecognizes referrals of summer interns and
tiple divisions at Aerospace, including
encourages the referring ambassadors to
the System Engineering Division, Space
recommend to their summer recruits that
Launch Operations, and CSD. They also
they eventually apply for permanent emdrew upon various disciplines and endeavployment. The ambassador program conors such as distributed intrusion detection,
tinues to actively recruit high-performing
biometric face recognition, and computing
newly graduated talent from many colleges
cluster enablement of Aerospace’s Sateland universities and to hire employees with
lite Orbit Analysis Program in support
great promise in science, engineering, techof the Concept Design Center and other
nology, and mathematics.
Aerospace users. These projects offered
The Herndon Memorial Science Competition
Since 1977, the annual Robert H. Herndon Memorial Science
Competition, hosted by Aerospace, has inspired Los Angeles–area
high-school and middle-school students to tackle science and engineering challenges. Following the program’s success, the corporation established a Washington-area competition in 2000 at the
Chantilly office.
The competition honors the memory of Robert H. Herndon, the trailblazing African-American engineer who served as group director of
the Advanced Mission Analysis Directorate and who played a key
role in helping Aerospace define policies and practices for equal
opportunity. The competition has two components: experiments and
essays.
The experiment competition is the hallmark event. Teams of up to five
students work with a faculty sponsor and an advisor assigned from
Aerospace. Experiments are evaluated by a group of judges made
up of senior management at Aerospace and executive officers from
the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC). Winning
projects are selected on the basis of originality and a demonstrated
understanding of any one of eight science categories: chemistry,
computer science, physics, engineering, robotics, aeronautics, environmental science, and biology. Some past winners presented
a blood-glucose stabilization diet for astronauts, investigated the
ecological importance of duckweed, and demonstrated the possible use of piezoelectric ultrasound in driving molecules through
membranes.
listen to panel discussions. More than 70 students participated in
2006. Winners receive savings bonds of up to $1,000 and may
also be eligible for summer employment at Aerospace. Oliver
Ambrosia, a winner in 2000, subsequently joined Aerospace as a
summer intern and now works in the Digital Communication Implementation Department. He delivered the welcome address at the
2006 competition.
Competition chair Terita Norton of the Digital and Integrated Circuit
Electronics Department said, “Students benefit from this competition in a number of ways. They are not only being exposed to the
fields of science and engineering, but also given an opportunity to
interact with technical experts in a variety of fields. Students who
may not have considered science or math interesting are given an
opportunity to experiment with new and exciting technologies.”
Winners and nonwinners alike will hone skills that will serve them
in their academic careers. The competition also gives employees at
Aerospace a chance to mentor interested students and helps foster
the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Essays must cover a scientific topic, but students are given broad latitude in choosing their own specific subject. Essays are also reviewed
by judges from Aerospace and SMC. Past winners have included
such titles as “Stem Cell Research: Its Promise and Its Controversy,”
“Nanotechnology: Revolutionizing Medicine and Materials Science,” and “Blowing Away the Big Bang Theory: The Impact of
Ekpyrotic and Superstring Theories.”
On the day of the event, students demonstrate their experiments in
the Paulikas Mall, tour the corporation’s laboratory operations, and
Aerospace publishes multiple peerreviewed conference and journal papers
from this collaboration with Harvey Mudd
students, and the company participates at
the college in the Clinic Advisory Committee, the President’s Corporate Advisory
Committee, and the Engineering Visitors
Committee.
Harvey Mudd College’s
Engineering Clinic
Aerospace’s affiliation with Harvey Mudd’s
Engineering Clinic offers students realworld problems and seeks solutions with
fresh perspectives. The clinic project requires that students apply their classroom
Steve Burrin and Rod Gibson view the students’ science demonstrations at the
annual Herndon competition.
knowledge by designing, building, and
testing their own hardware. Operating
as a mission-oriented investigation and
experimentation effort, each clinic team addresses issues relevant to Aerospace’s Communication Electronics Department, with
a particular focus on satellite payloads. In
response to a problem statement generated
by the Aerospace clinic liaison, the clinic
team develops solutions that can be applicable to several satellite programs. In recent
years, teams have tackled such projects as
a high-speed bit-error-rate tester, a digital
feed-forward linearizer for high-power
radio-frequency amplifiers, an imaging
and positioning platform for picosats, an
e­ xtended-range analog/digital assembly, and
a chaotic radar unit.
The Harvey Mudd Engineering Clinic
has been a great success. Several students
from the college have been hired as interns and also as full-time employees. The
2003–04 engineering clinic team developed
possible solutions for a positioning and
imaging platform for picosats. The students
developed the basic imaging platform design, which Aerospace engineers enhanced.
These imaging platforms are present on
picosats that were launched December 20,
2006, from the space shuttle Discovery.
Numerous pictures of Discovery and Earth
were received during the picosat mission.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 19
Harvey Mudd’s 2007 engineering clinic
team will design a quick-response portable
satellite beacon tracking system for picosats.
Ideally, it will allow Aerospace to locate the
picosats and use a small dish antenna to
communicate with them.
University of Southern California’s Center for Systems and Software Engineering
In the early 1990s, the University of Southern California (USC) contracted with
Aerospace to establish the first Ground
System Architectures Workshop (GSAW).
GSAW is an international forum where
spacecraft ground-system experts share
issues and solutions with other ground
system users, developers, and researchers
through presentations, working groups, and
panel discussions. Aerospace is the main
sponsor of GSAW with cooperation from
several organizations, including USC’s
Center for Systems and Software Engineering (CSSE). CSSE’s director has been a
keynote speaker, panelist, and member of
the GSAW advisory and program committees. CSSE faculty and students have been
speakers and panelists at GSAW conferences, which are held at Aerospace in El
Segundo.
The CSSE hosts the Los Angeles Software Process Improvement Network and
two major annual forums—the International Forum on COCOMO (constructive
cost model, a method for evaluating the
costs of developing software) and Software
Cost Modeling, as well as the Annual
Research Review. Both of these seminars
include workshops on current systems engineering and software development topics
such as life-cycle models, agile development methods, model-driven architecture,
and costing the evaluation and integration
of commercial off-the-shelf products into
software-intensive systems. Aerospace
employees and customers throughout the
United States participate in these forums
and associated workshops, sharing knowledge from industry and academic affiliates.
Participants directly encourage research
directions that will benefit the Aerospace
community.
The forum topics have expanded over the
years to include more systems engineering
issues, including models for estimating the
cost and effort of systems engineering, for
estimating the cost and effort of integrating
systems of systems, and for costing high-security systems. The future expectation is for
Aerospace to share information with CSSE
faculty and students on more systems engineering disciplines such as human systems
20 • Crosslink Spring 2007
integration, system-ofsystems architecture,
and critical success
factors for acquisition
and management.
Aerospace has also
worked with USC on
system dynamics modeling of software and
system life-cycle interactions and choices.
These are topics that
hold significant interest for Aerospace, and
the collaborations
keep employees and
students in close cooperation.
A group of Aerospace employees and Corporate University Affiliates Program
students from Harvey Mudd College’s Computer Science Clinic gather for a
photo at their fall kickoff meeting.
Institute for Software Research at
the University of California, Irvine
An affiliation between Aerospace and the
University of California, Irvine, was established in October 1997 with the University’s Irvine Research Unit in Software, the
predecessor of what is now the Institute
for Software Research (ISR). The current
Aerospace-ISR agreement was established
in October 2002, emphasizing three major
goals: for Aerospace to keep up to date on
ISR’s research; for ISR to participate in
Aerospace’s annual GSAW; and for both
partners to conduct technical interchanges
and meetings and plan for joint research.
This affiliation has enhanced Aerospace’s
expertise in software engineering and computer systems and has increased its technical leadership and presence through joint
support for GSAW, the ISR Research Forum, and Aerospace’s Computers and Software Division technical forum and through
workforce development initiatives.
Major highlights of the UC Irvine affiliation have included the planning and
execution of the Architecture-Centric Evolution Working Group as part of GSAW,
the delivery of ISR minicourses at The
Aerospace Institute, the offering of Aerospace summer internships to ISR doctoral
students, and an exploration of the applicability of innovative software engineering
and computer system technologies.
ISR led the team in developing two proposals submitted to the National Science
Foundation: “A Partnership for Innovation
in Software Architectures and Product Line
Technologies” (directed to the Foundation’s
Partnerships for Innovation Program) and
“Requirements, Traceability and Validation for Systems of Cooperating Systems”
(directed to its Information Technology
Research Program). In addition, ISR led the
team in creating a report on challenges and
approaches to information systems technology testing and software testing for the Department of Defense Test and Evaluation
Office, Science and Technology Program.
This productive collaboration has
generated recommendations for improving software architecture representations,
development, and design for ground and
space software-intensive systems. These
recommendations have been defined at the
annual Architecture-Centric Evolution
Working Group sessions with input from
government agencies, contractors, academia,
and other federally funded research and
development centers. They provide an important foundation for software architecture
requirements that can be used in the acquisition and development of national security
space and civil and commercial softwareintensive systems.
Conclusion
The Corporate University Affiliates Program plays an important role in developing
the next generation of space professionals
at Aerospace. Its affiliations are an integral
part of the corporation’s recruitment efforts,
research, and development, and they help
to provide Aerospace with the best possible
pool of potential new employees. These
mutually beneficial collaborations build and
sustain strong bonds across the nation between the corporation and colleges and universities. As the use of space resources becomes more pervasive throughout defense
and national security agencies, demands on
the skills of space professionals will increase.
The information exchange and brainstorming that CUAP fosters makes for a more
educated and invigorated workforce.
Work Studies (part 2 of 4)
Rebecca Cortesi
Like many people at Aerospace, Rebecca Cortesi thrives on a dynamic
and challenging work environment. “One of the things that I enjoy most
about my job is that there is no such thing as a ‘typical day,’ ” she said.
“The work that I do is constantly changing.”
Since joining the Sensor Engineering and Exploitation Department
in Chantilly, Cortesi said, “I have written data analysis algorithms, designed optical systems, flown across the country multiple times to provide support to customer meetings, participated in the planning
and executing of outdoor field tests, characterized light sources and sensors, provided
advice to contractors, developed schedules
for future project work, etc., etc.—and I’ve
only been here for five months.”
Cortesi began her career at Aerospace
as a summer intern, after her junior year at
the University of Rochester, where she was
studying optics engineering. On the advice of her career center, she
contacted Aerospace, and found an attractive opportunity in the Electro-Optical Systems Department in El Segundo. Admittedly, she was
partly lured by location. “I was quite happy to be heading out to sunny
southern California, as a break from snowy upstate New York.” She
continued on at Rochester to complete her B.S. and M.S. in optics engineering in May of 2005 and 2006, respectively, and then subsequently came back to Aerospace—though this time, she settled in Chantilly, rather than El Segundo, so that she could stay reasonably close to
her family in Albany, New York.
The most significant difference between her work as an intern and
her work in her current department (part of the Electronics and Sensors
Division) is that most of her work now is classified. “The classified work
is extremely interesting—both technically and programmatically—but it
obviously brings with it new sets of challenges,” she said. “I now have
four monitors, two desktop computers, one laptop, and two phone lines
on my desk, instead of just the one computer and phone line I had as
an intern.” Working full time has also allowed her to become more involved in projects over a longer period of time, she said, noting that “as
an intern, I felt like I had to leave to return to school right when I had
finally gotten acclimated.”
Cortesi notes that senior staff members—even the notoriously busy
ones—do their best to provide the support she might need as a relative newcomer to the company. Still, it’s not always obvious whom
to contact about a particular issue. “I would imagine that individuals
who have worked with the company for a long time probably have a
good idea where to turn for help,” she said, “but I, as a new person,
sometimes find it difficult to know where to go.” Institute classes such
as “Learning the Business of Aerospace” help provide that depth of
corporate knowledge, while classes in the technical curriculum provide
a more meaningful scientific context. “The most useful Institute class I’ve
attended was the ‘Space Systems Overview’ class,” Cortesi said. “This
was particularly helpful for me, as a technical person new to space
science.”
The aerospace industry overall is facing a shortage of qualified
engineers and scientists. Cortesi believes that more can be done to
make space science exciting and relevant for younger kids. “One of the
things that I most enjoyed doing while I was a student at Rochester was
giving optics demonstrations for elementary school children,” she said,
suggesting perhaps that Aerospace could do something similar. New
Aerospace personnel at all stages of their careers
share a commitment to professional ­development.
hires like herself, fresh out of school, are closest in age to the students
who would benefit most, and may be able to provide valuable insight
and support for programs like these. “But,” she cautioned, “extra effort
may be required to ensure that the new hires are aware of what is going on in the company.”
In all, Cortesi appreciates the combination of focused technical work
and broad national security concerns. “One of the things I find most
interesting about my job is the unique opportunities that I am offered
through frequent interactions with individuals at the program office,”
she said. “These interactions have encouraged me to quickly develop
a ‘big picture’ view, while still allowing me to pay attention to the nittygritty technical details.”
Paul Burridge
“Doing great work with great people”—that’s how Paul Burridge describes his time at Aerospace. Burridge is the Aerospace lead for the
SBIRS High–GEO intersegment test program, designed to lead to the
successful on-orbit operation and certification of this important space
system. “My typical day involves the coordination and working of various hardware and software issues with the contractor and customer
to ensure the successful conduct of the intersegment test program,” he
said. This role is a relatively new one for Burridge, who came to the
project through the Aerospace Rotation Program, a corporate initiative designed to broaden the expertise of technical specialists and
strengthen relationships among diverse corporate divisions. Members
of the technical staff can apply for temporary
assignments up to a year long with another
organization, after which they have the option to return to their original department and
position level or continue in their new role.
“I wanted to broaden my expertise, experience, and contributions to the corporation
by fulfilling an expressed need on a program
of importance to our national security space
customers,” Burridge said. Before moving
to the SBIRS High program office, Burridge
was a senior project leader in the Vehicle Systems Division, where he
­primarily focused on NASA independent assessment and space shuttle
return-to-flight support. He brings to his new position broad technical
knowledge, an attention to detail, and experience working in diverse
group settings. Burridge has enjoyed this newest phase in his career,
and has found it particularly satisfying to “participate in a successful intersegment test with all stakeholders working well together as a team.”
Being a team player is important for success at Aerospace, Burridge
said, along with other traits such as integrity, consideration of others,
and commitment to doing the right thing. Most of these qualities are innate, he said, but “Aerospace certainly provides the right environment
to support and strengthen them.”
Like many people at Aerospace, Burridge has a high regard for continuing education. He came to the corporation with a Ph.D. in civil engineering and geophysics from Caltech, and has since made good use
of the corporation’s in-house educational programs. He has completed
all the coursework for the Aerospace Systems ­Architecting/Engineering Certificate Program, and expects to fulfill the professional development requirement in the near future. Thus, he’s set to join a select group
of staff members awarded the Aerospace Systems Engineer/Systems
­Architect ­certificate.
More “Work Studies,” p. 36
Developing the Next Generation
of Systems Engineers
A recent study sheds light on what it takes to become a successful senior
systems engineer—and suggests a means to accelerate that process in today’s engineering population.
Heidi Davidz
A
s aerospace systems grow in complexity and interdependence, there is an increasing need for engineering professionals who can successfully plan, develop,
manage, and evolve these systems. Yet, the national security
space community is facing a growing shortage of senior systems engineers, as the number of systems positions increase
and older workers leave the workforce. Organizations commonly lure skilled systems engineers away from each other
or try to fill these roles with junior personnel who lack the
requisite skills and/or experience, but these efforts fail to address the underlying problem. The question is, how can the
national security space community expedite the development
of the next generation of senior systems engineers?
The type of thinking required by systems professionals is
sometimes referred to as “systems thinking.” While systems
thinking may be found throughout organizations, systems
engineers are specifically charged with applying it to engineering systems. A systems engineer must be proficient in
systems thinking. Therefore, it follows that if one can accelerate the development of systems thinking, one can accelerate the development of a systems engineer. Industry, government, and academia are scurrying to establish programs to
develop systems thinking; however, many of these programs
are designed solely on heuristics or unproven assumptions of
how systems thinking develops.
A recent doctoral research study supported in part by
Aerospace sought to test these assumptions by examining
existing literature and gathering a large sample of empirical
data. The goal was to show which methods are most effective
in developing systems thinking in engineers. Data were collected to understand how systems engineers develop—particularly in regard to enablers, barriers, and precursors to
developing systems-thinking proficiency. It also documented
how engineers define systems thinking and investigated
company procedures for developing systems engineers.
Aerospace is now using and expanding on this work to
help its customers build integrated approaches to develop-
ing systems professionals in their organizations. Aerospace is
helping its customers build effective and efficient programs
to grow systems capability by designing programs based on
evidence of how system thinking actually develops.
Study Design
In the course of this research, 205 employees in 9 companies
were interviewed, primarily in the U.S. aerospace sector.
These included The Aerospace Corporation, BMW, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton, General Dynamics, MITRE,
Northrop Grumman, Pratt and Whitney, and Sikorsky.
The project began with an extensive literature review
and a series of pilot interviews to gather information on the
development of systems thinking and ascertain how best to
structure the study. Next, a point of contact was designated
at each of the participating organizations; this person helped
gather a panel of experts highly familiar with the policies
and practices of how that company developed senior systems
engineers. The qualifications of these experts varied by company, but a typical panel consisted of a vice president of engineering, two senior systems engineers with approximately 30
years each of experience, and a human resources representative who designed systems engineering training.
The expert panelists in each company were asked to
identify interview subjects in three groups: senior systems
engineers, junior systems engineers, and senior technical
specialists. The primary interest was in the characteristics,
development histories, and opinions of the senior systems
professionals; the junior systems engineers and the senior
technical specialists were control groups. The premise was
that if certain types of people are drawn to systems roles, the
responses of junior and senior systems engineers would be
similar. Likewise, if systems expertise develops through experience, senior systems engineers and senior technical specialists would have similar responses to the interview questions.
Before the interviews, participants completed a survey designed to gather information on demographics, ­educational
background, assigned work roles, and past
training history. During the interview, participants were asked about definitions of
systems thinking, enablers and barriers to
systems thinking development, individual
characteristics that predict the development of systems thinking, and key steps to
s­ystems-thinking development. Expert panelists were also asked about formal company
procedures for developing systems engineers. Interviews were also conducted with
“blue-chip” professionals—experts who are
well recognized throughout the aerospace
sector for their systems-thinking expertise.
These interviews were used for additional
validation of the field study results.
The survey data were analyzed using
statistical data processing software. The
interview data were analyzed using content
analysis techniques, whereby key ideas and
thoughts were categorized and aggregated.
Approximately 1000 pages of transcripts
were coded, yielding 908 categories of
information. The coded data were then exported to a statistical data analysis tool.
Systems Thinking Definitions
The interview subjects were asked to define systems thinking. The 205 interviews
conducted yielded 205 different definitions
of systems thinking. Additionally, subjects
were asked to consider a given definition of
systems thinking and this too generated a
variety of responses. Evidently, when people
refer to systems thinking, they are often not
articulating the same concept.
The variety of definitions that emerged
were distilled to identify common elements
or descriptors of a systems-thinking framework. Five foundational elements were
identified: componential, relational, contextual, dynamic, and modal. The componential
element addresses what types of things are
considered in systems thinking, for example,
system objectives, the system elements, and
the system domain. The relational element
addresses the interconnections, interactions, and interdependencies both within
the system of interest and between the
system of interest and other systems. The
contextual element addresses the nested and
embedded nature of systems. The dynamic
element links systems in time to the future
and past, to include important aspects such
as feedback, uncertainty, risk, and what
are referred to as the “ilities.” Examples of
these include flexibility, agility, reliability,
and sustainability. The modal element aids
with understanding and comprehension
of the system and is the “how” of systems
thinking; it includes the variety of aids engineers use to comprehend the complexity
Christina Smith discusses with Denny Pidhayny a model of the satellite tracking function of a three-gimbaled
ground station. Smith is pointing to the changes in the gimbal angle while the antenna tracks.
of a system, such as frameworks, processes,
models, simulations, tools, methods, and
different types of thinking. The definition
that resulted from combining these five
basic elements became: “Systems thinking
is utilizing modal elements to consider the
componential, relational, contextual, and
dynamic elements of the system of interest.”
There are disadvantages to having
numerous definitions of systems thinking within an organization. First, this
divergence may lead to imprecise goal
definitions. Second, it can also lead to
inconsistent measures of the strength of
systems thinking within an organization.
For example, when subjects were asked,
“How does your company determine if an
employee displays strong systems thinking?” the number one response was “do
not know,” while the other top-ranked
responses were related to observation and
subjective measures. When senior systems
engineers within the same company have
different definitions of systems thinking,
and when quality of ­systems thinking is
determined by observation and subjective
measures based on a variety of definitions,
diverse behaviors emerge. It should then
come as no surprise that 71 percent of the
junior systems engineers surveyed had difficulty understanding how their company
determined strong systems thinking. This
raises an important question: How can an
organization expedite the development of
junior systems engineers when these engineers do not know what they are supposed
to develop into and do not understand how
their progress is ­being measured?
Enablers to Systems Thinking
Although the study found that definitions
of systems thinking diverge, it found substantial agreement on the mechanisms that
enable, as well as obstruct, systems-thinking development. The mechanisms deemed
most effective at fostering systems thinking
included experiential learning (which encompassed both work and life experiences),
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 23
development of certain personality traits,
and a supportive work environment. Many
organizations facing the challenge of developing a systems engineering workforce immediately jump to implementing training
classes. However, the data from this study
show that this may be a flawed strategy,
because systems engineering skills develop
primarily through experiential learning—
not through a traditional classroom setting.
Thus, systems engineering development
programs should emphasize experiential
learning as an effective approach to developing systems thinking.
For example, study participants were
asked, “What were key steps in your life
that developed your systems-thinking
a­ bilities?” The top-ranked response was
“work experiences,” cited by 139 participants (69 percent). In each participant
category, more respondents cited work
experiences than anything else. Likewise,
95 percent of the expert panelists noted
work experiences as a key step to the development of systems thinking—remarkable
consensus for this data-solicitation format.
Interview subjects were asked, “In your
experience, what enablers or barriers have
you seen to the development of systems
thinking in engineers?” The responses again
highlighted the importance of experiential
learning, with “experience” noted as the
top-ranked category for enablers to systems
thinking for all interview participants.
The blue-chip interviews also emphasized experiential learning. One interviewee
stated that during the mid-1960s, programs
went from concept to operation in three
to five years. He said, “In a period of 15
years, an engineer would work on three to
five programs, progressively working up to
greater responsibilities. There was a whittling down process so that we could pick
the systems engineer. There would be three
to five programs with four to five segments
each, so we could pick the systems engineers
for the new programs from this pool. We
might have eight people to choose from and
we could pick the best engineer. We never
had a problem with training because it was
provided on the job. We never thought
Key Steps to the Development of Systems Thinking
Category
All Participants
(202)
Expert Panelists (37) Senior Systems
Engineers (61)
Senior Technical
Specialists (52)
Junior Systems
Engineers (52)
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Work experiences
1
139
1
35
1
36
1
38
1
30
Education
2
80
3
13
3
22
3
17
2
28
Individual characteristics
4
64
2
16
4
16
4
11
3
21
Life experiences outside work
3
72
4
5
2
27
2
19
3
21
Interpersonal skills
5
37
4
5
5
13
4
11
5
8
Training
6
16
6
4
6
7
6
2
6
3
Individual Characteristics for the Development of Systems Thinking in Engineers
Category
All Participants
(202)
Expert Panelists (37) Senior Systems
Engineers (61)
Senior Technical
Specialists (52)
Junior Systems
Engineers (52)
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Rank
Number
Cluster for thinking broadly
1
65
1
13
1
15
1
18
1
19
Cluster for curiosity
2
43
1
13
3
12
2
12
5
6
Cluster for questioning
3
34
3
8
7
8
3
11
3
7
Open-mindedness
4
28
9
3
2
13
9
4
2
8
Communication skills
5
27
5
5
4
11
9
4
3
7
Cluster for tolerance for
­uncertainty
6
23
4
7
5
9
15
3
8
4
Strong interpersonal skills
7
22
5
5
11
6
5
6
7
5
Cluster for thinking out-of-box
8
20
9
3
15
4
4
9
8
4
A series of tables show the data analysis of the field study. Five classifications
were used: (1) All Participants, (2) Expert Panelists, (3) Senior Systems Engineers,
(4) Senior Technical Specialists, and (5) Junior Systems Engineers. The number in
parentheses is the number of participants who responded to a question. “Rank”
is the rank of the category in comparison to the other categories for that question. “Number” is the number of respondents in each classification who cited that
24 • Crosslink Spring 2007
category. Categories cited by 10 percent or more of a classification are shaded.
Though some of the percentages may seem small, this was a semistructured
interview format that allowed for open-ended responses. It was not a structured
tool where more convergent ideas might be identified. Thus, when convergence
does appear, it is notable.
about setting up training until the 2001
timeframe, when we thought about how to
fix the problems in space ­acquisition.”
Specific character traits also seem to foster systems thinking in engineers. Interview
subjects were asked, “Are there certain individual characteristics or innate traits that
seem to predict the development of systems
thinking? If so, what are they?” Respondents
noted thinking broadly, curiosity, questioning, open-mindedness, communication, tolerance for uncertainty, strong interpersonal
skills, and an ability to “think outside of the
box” as top-ranked characteristics.
Top-cited barriers to the development
of systems thinking included schedule and
cost constraints, organizational confinements, and a narrow job definition. For
example, after employees receive systems
training, they may return to an environment
where the “tyranny of the urgent” prohibits thinking of the larger system, or where
organizational boundaries obstruct further
development of systems understanding, or
where a narrow job focus deters investment
in the rest of the system.
A supportive environment enables the
development of systems thinking in engineers, and systems training should coordinate with organizational incentives. Otherwise, a misaligned work environment may
invalidate investments in systems training.
An organization might heavily invest in
systems engineering training but use organizational incentives that only reward skill
in technical depth, rather than skill in systems integration. Here, the misaligned work
environment is counterproductive to the
investment in systems training. Data from
the blue-chip interviews also substantiated
the need for a supportive environment to
develop systems thinking.
Expert panelists were asked to explain
how their companies currently develop systems engineers. The maturity of the systems
engineering development programs varied
considerably across the companies interviewed. In some cases, although the company might have a systems development
program in place, the research revealed
unclear objectives of what was wanted in its
systems professionals. Often, systems training classes were noted as ineffective, experiential learning was not being emphasized,
and the organizational environment was not
supportive of this development. The findings also revealed that many companies lack
a meaningful feedback structure to ascertain
whether the training program in place is
even working.
Applying the Findings
Organizations that want to develop their
systems engineering workforce need to set
up integrated learning programs to build
these skills in employees. First, well defined
goals of what is wanted in systems professionals must be established. Next, there
needs to be a clear understanding of why
the development of systems capability is
necessary, what types of systems capability
are needed, and what the current state of
systems practice is within a given organization. Data and literature collected from
inside and outside the group should be used
to make this assessment.
Some organizations need to improve
classical systems engineering skills, while
others need skills for system-of-systems
environments. One organization might
need to develop systems engineers who are
requirements owners and process engineers,
while another might need to enhance the
capabilities of systems engineers who are
system designers and integrators. Each organization should clearly identify its workforce development requirements.
The strategy an organization formulates
and communicates about how to develop
these systems skills in employees should
be based on proven studies of how systems
skills actually develop. This study revealed
that systems thinking develops primarily
through experiential learning. A strategy
for developing systems professionals should
therefore include experiential learning opportunities. This study also demonstrated
how specific individual characteristics play
a role in the successful development of
systems thinking. Though more research
is needed to determine the full impact of
individual characteristics on organizational
systems performance, organizations could
eventually foster and filter for the identified
characteristics in their systems groups.
The workforce development strategy
should integrate the individual, group,
organizational, and sector levels of analysis. For example, as an individual is given
systems training, group and organizational
incentives should support that training.
The systems capabilities of a team could be
developed instead of focusing on just an individual. Systems training courses could be
integrated with work assignments, job rotations, mentoring programs, systems engineering processes, and knowledge management tools to continuously develop systems
competencies in individuals. Organizations
might consider working with professional
societies to study more effective mechanisms to developing systems engineers.
In an integrated development strategy,
an organization should set up feedback
and quality-control mechanisms to gather
data on how well its development program
is working. These feedback mechanisms
should extend beyond how well a student
liked a course or the number of students
trained. Next, systems engineering competency at the individual, team, and organizational levels should be assessed. The organization should also sponsor research projects
to better understand how systems engineers
develop and how to improve the quality of
systems engineering delivered by the organization. This type of support should enable
innovation and continuous improvement to
the organization.
Finally, the organization must plan to
develop the systems engineering workforce
efficiently and effectively. Too often, the development of systems professionals is needlessly driven by ambiguity, imprecision, and
assumptions about how these skills develop.
Clarity of purpose, multilevel integration,
a critical examination of current methods,
and assessments of results will accelerate
the development of systems professionals. In addition, increased research funding
and rigorous study in this area will lead to
enhanced understanding and innovative
methods to developing a systems engineering workforce.
Conclusion
The development of the next generation of
space systems professionals can be expedited through a better understanding of the
mechanisms that develop systems thinking. The results of this study show that the
mechanisms currently being used are not
the most effective. The drastic shortage of
senior systems professionals demands the
exploration of new and innovative ways of
developing systems engineers. Many people
talk about the aging aerospace workforce
and the need to develop the next generation of space systems professionals, yet few
seem willing to invest the research resources
needed to critically, precisely, and creatively
examine how the workforce can develop
these requisite skills.
Editor’s Note
Segments of this article were excerpted from
Dr. Davidz’s Ph.D. dissertation, “Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development
of Senior Systems Engineers,” copyright, 2006,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Those segments were reprinted with the express
permission of MIT. The research was sponsored
by the Lean Aerospace Initiative at MIT.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 25
Can Concept Maps
Bridge the Engineering Gap?
A recent Aerospace study sought to determine whether graphical
representations of engineering thought processes could help capture
the knowledge of senior engineers.
Michael Kramer
T
wo generations of space systems engineers have designed, developed, and refined the processes, technologies, and techniques for building satellites. Many of
these pioneers have left the aerospace industry, while others
are approaching retirement. Much of their knowledge will
depart with them unless it is captured and organized in some
useful way. As one manager said, “More than 30 percent of
my people will retire in the next three years, while almost 30
percent of my people have less than three years of experience.
How can we bridge the knowledge from one generation to
the next?”
A research project conducted at Aerospace from March
through August 2005 attempted to collect, organize, and efficiently reuse the knowledge of domain experts. The focus
was on identifying the processes that experienced engineers
use to drive initial design decisions when they are translating
mission requirements into design requirements. The project
was designed to apply “concept maps,” which graphically
depict the relationships among interdependent ideas. Three
goals were identified: to demonstrate that concept maps can
be used for knowledge acquisition among multiple domain
experts; to develop a prototype knowledge representation
model from the concept maps; and to assess the utility of
that model by examining a limited problem to see if the
maps help solve it.
Concept mapping was originally developed as a tool for
education. It’s based on the theory that people learn by associating new concepts with concepts they already know.
New concepts are tied to existing concepts by the perceived
relationships among them, and prior knowledge is used as a
framework for understanding and acquiring new knowledge.
A tripartite association of concept-relationship-concept
evolves from this learning; this relationship triplet is called
a precept. Concept maps can be created to visually describe
these relationships with numerous precepts. They are used to
stimulate ideas and are believed to help foster creativity.
Knowledge Harvesting and Evocative Objects
This research project attempted to harvest the knowledge of
Aerospace experts by eliciting their memories of a project
and tying them to other engineers’ memories of the same
project. One way to elicit and harvest knowledge is through
the use of evocative objects. For example, a former Xerox
Palo Alto Research Center director tells the story of how
Xerox repairmen and design engineers were brought together in the hope that they could collaborate to produce
better designs. The meeting was going nowhere until the director rolled in one of the machines, letting the repair people
take it apart while sharing stories about the parts. The stories
centered on what worked, what failed, and what drove the
design decisions that led to the development of the parts.
Taking the machine apart evoked the men’s memories and
helped them share what they knew.
Getting satellites back from space is difficult, at best, so
taking one apart to get the design stories was unlikely for the
Aerospace project. Some other type of evocative object was
therefore needed. Interviewing subject matter experts and
developing concept maps seemed a fruitful option. The initial concept maps would serve as evocative images, drawing
out the memories of other engineers, enabling the researchers to develop even more detailed maps.
A basic technique for knowledge harvesting is to choose
a known, solved problem and review it with experts in that
field. This is what was done with the Aerospace engineers.
The statement of requirements for a satellite development
program was reviewed as a representative tough problem. Two sections of those requirements were chosen for
study—the attitude determination and control system, and
the power system. These were chosen in part because they
have very little overlap and because the people who work on
them are in separate facilities and have very little interaction.
The directors of the Control Analysis Department within
the Vehicle Systems Division and the Electrical and Power
This concept map covering power systems requirements for a satellite development program was developed by organizing the recollections of a senior engineer in the Electrical and Power Systems Department.
Power
systems
have
Design
drivers
impact
Propellant
tank size
Battery
name plate
capacity
and
sized for
Solar
loads
End of life
capacity
like
Mission
requirements
are
and
and
sometimes
N are
required
includes
Launch
date
if soon
use
How
long
Proven
tech
has
includes
and
Mission
life
or
Orbital
inclination
where
like
like
Orbital
altitude
N+1
use
if mid-term
use
Payload
power
contribute
to
Satellite
power
Example
more
Higher
risk
where
like
subtract
from
add to
such as
Energy
balance
Solar
cells
Comms
Demand
consists
of
Tech
freeze
date
and
for
Duration
and
Amount
Full
sunlight
charges
needs
Payload
uses
provided
by
in
complete by
includes
Satellite
uses
Sources
New
concepts
bring
Modes
includes
includes
for
long term
consider
Developing
technologies
Smaller
impact
Power
budget
provided by
Batteries
in
Load
match
against
Power
budget
Stored
energy
Day
in the
life
for
Energy collected
during mode
Expected
daily
behaviors
Components
and
Systems
for
Indirect
effects
Mission
impact
of
and
including
Power
use
to
Payload
needs
and
like
becomes
Baseline
operation
Energy
balance
over
mission life
and
Constant
demand
limits
Waste
heat
considers
consisting of
Energy
collection
and
storage
to
to
Next
task
causing
High
transient
limits
Depth
of
discharge
and
Recovery
to
mapped
state
High
transient
need
Send
data
to prepare for
Battery
performance
over time
impacts
Antennae
System
reset
Interactions
among
models
sum to be
is
to point
including
Net mode impact
by
Transmitter
Year
in the
life
or
Partial
sunlight
to warm
AD&CS
models
plus
determining
needs
limited by
Cell
loss
and
Battery
loss
Solar collector
performance
over time
degrades from
Radiation
and
Micrometeor
damage
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 27
Engineer 1 provided concept
Engineer 2 provided concept
Engineer 3 provided concept
Jointly provided concept
This concept map combines the input from three experts in the Electrical and Power System Department. All of the experts started from the same place, but each took very different paths to the
half dozen boxes at the bottom of the map. The boxes are color coded to identify common concepts
as well as concepts unique to each engineer.
28 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Systems Department within the Electronics
and Sensors Division were asked to suggest leaders in design for their respective
domains, and those leaders were asked to
recommend domain experts. At the conclusion of the search, two domain experts from
the Control Analysis Department and three
from the Electrical and Power Systems
Department agreed to help develop concept
maps covering their respective domains.
The five participants averaged more than 22
years of experience.
The engineers’ stories and responses to
solving the requirements-translation problem were elicited and transcribed and then
reviewed with each engineer. In most cases,
a few additional concepts were expressed
during this review. The stories and additions
were then converted into concept maps.
The process began with collecting every
unique concept name and its relational
connectors to other concept names. These
precepts were sorted from most abstract
to most concrete and mapped to a single
diagram. The experts were then given their
concept maps for review. As expected, these
maps functioned as evocative objects. As
each expert reviewed them, new concepts,
relationships, and connections were defined
and added. This second round of concept
maps depicted a vastly increased amount of
information.
Each of these experts brought a unique
background in terms of education, experience, and temperament, all of which influenced their approaches to design. One
of the goals of this project was to gather
the varied knowledge of numerous experts,
but it was also important to preserve the
valuable differences among experts’ knowledge. A comparison of the ordered lists
of concepts showed multiple instances of
similar or identical concepts among different experts. On the other hand, there
were differences among the experts’ lists of
concepts, and many more differences in the
relationships between them. The experts in
each domain used a core taxonomy; these
common terms were the language of that
domain, and the relationships among the
concepts reflected each expert’s approach to
that domain. The maps from the engineers
in the Electrical and Power Systems Department shared a common vocabulary, but
they also reflected individual observations.
Similarly, the maps from the domain experts in the Control Analysis Department
reflected the language those experts use and
their approach to a design problem. The
next step was to combine the concept maps
from all the experts in a domain. First, their
common concepts and relationships were
mapped out. This produced a core map that
reflected their agreement. Then, the remaining relationships and concepts were added,
with color coding to preserve and reflect
each expert’s approach to translating the
requirements.
Utility Evaluation
The essential questions at this point were,
“Do the concept maps accurately depict the
experts’ approaches to their domains, and
do they provide a useful tool for knowledge
capture and sharing?” To assess this, a Solomon four-group test was run. The Solomon
test involves gathering four groups of similar people who are randomly assembled out
of a test population. Two tests are administered: The first group takes only the first
test; the second group takes the first test
and then, after some intervention or learning process, takes the second test; the third
group skips the first test, but takes the second test after completing the learning process; the fourth group takes only the second
test, without any preliminary learning process. In this case, the first and second tests
were the same: Engineers were given one
hour to review a statement of requirements
on orbit for the satellite program in development and to list design requirements.
The test was administered first with one
group, then with the second group. As expected, both groups fared similarly because
they were randomly assembled from a
group with similar backgrounds and similar
translation capabilities. The second group
was then given a concept map and the same
problem to review again. The second pass
through the problem generated different,
additional, and more diverse design requirements. This may have been because the engineers had the concept map to work with,
or it might have been because they had seen
the problem once already. The third group
was then given the problem and the concept map at the same time. This group used
the concept map as a guide for translating
the statement of mission requirements to
design requirements. The third group translated significantly more requirements than
the second group did after two passes at the
problem.
Because the first and second tests were
the same in this project (listing design requirements), the first group functioned as
the fourth by repeating the test. An analysis
of the results indicates that for both the
Electrical and Power Systems group and
the Control Analysis Department group,
the use of the concept maps led to the
translation of significantly more design
­requirements.
Conclusion
The results of this research project show
that concept maps can serve as evocative objects in the recall of concepts and
precepts used by domain experts. As the
experts reviewed and corrected their maps,
they recalled more concepts and more
relationships among them. The structural,
graphic, and visual nature of the concept
map fostered memory recall. In addition,
concept maps from individual domain experts can be combined to enable the joint
representation of different approaches to
translating mission requirements into design requirements.
The Solomon test also revealed the usefulness of concept maps as guides in the
translation of design requirements. The use
of the concept maps produced larger numbers of requirements and significantly more
diverse requirements than a single review
of the given problem, or even a second review without the concept maps as a guide.
The test results are at best suggestive, not
determinative, of the utility of this model,
and further testing with larger populations
is required to establish significant utility.
Nonetheless, it would be of obvious benefit
to the national security space community
if knowledgeable people with a map but
without the direct intervention of domain
experts could translate a wide and diverse
set of design requirements. The concept
mapping model could be designed so that
domain experts would help generate domain maps and review the requirements
translated by less experienced people. This
would make efficient use of a dwindling
senior workforce. Aerospace is planning a
­follow-up project to explore the possibility
of an interactive domain map with some
form of semantic update based on later
stages of design and development.
Further Reading
J. D. Novak, Learning, Creating and Using
Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in
Schools and Corporations (Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates, Mawah, NJ, 1998).
J. D. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to
Learn (Cambridge University Press, New York,
1984).
S. Turkle, The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (Simon and Schuster, New York,
1985).
U. Sekaran, Research Methods for Business (Fourth
ed.) ( John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2003).
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 29
Training the National Security Space
Workforce in Systems Architecting
Aerospace has developed a curriculum that effectively teaches the mindset required for successful system architecting.
Mark Maier
F
or the past eight years, Aerospace has been developing
an educational program designed to help move highly
skilled, technically oriented engineers into the more
nebulous, ill-structured world of systems architecture. Although this program—the Aerospace Systems Architecting
Program—originally concentrated on internal capabilities, it
evolved to accommodate students from the larger national
security space community. The program uses an intellectual
core of material in ill-structured problem solving and conceptual design to address areas usually regarded as “soft,” or
more art than science. While this material is not traditionally
presented in engineering programs, it is in fact possible to
teach—and after years of refinement, Aerospace has developed an effective means of doing so.
Program History
The idea for a formal training program in systems architecture within Aerospace began in the mid-1990s. It was
evident to a number of managers that the rapid changes
brought about by the end of the Cold War were requiring
a new set of skills in program conception. The stable background of objectives and requirements was falling away, and
new programs had to deal with understanding root purpose,
and how root purpose can be influenced by technology,
in ways that had been uncommon for nearly 20 years. At
about the same time, a former Aerospace CEO, Eberhardt
­Rechtin, founded an academic program in systems architecting at the University of Southern California. Several Aerospace employees had been exposed to the program during
graduate school, and awareness of the approach was growing
in the corporation. A decision was made to create an internal
training program in systems architecting focused on the specific needs of national security space.
The first version of the Aerospace Systems Architecting
Program was a 120-hour sequence of lectures and case exercises spread over several months in 1997 and 1998. Based on
the pilot experience, this was rearranged into four one-week
blocks to assist students with managing time away from
their jobs. The single case exercise was expanded into two
complete case exercises, each lasting approximately half the
course. This “production course” was then offered annually
through 2002 to audiences drawn from most company sites
and divisions.
As the core audience completed the course, demand
trailed off. With that in mind, the course was rearranged into
a more modular format, one that could be completed over
a longer period and that lent itself to greater customization
for particular audiences. This was done by building a core sequence of three short courses, each capable of standing alone,
followed by a set of elective courses tailored to particular
project areas.
One factor that was evident from the beginning, but
became more obvious over time, is that executive leadership
plays a central role in the success or failure of an architecture
project. While managers do not need the same set of skills as
practitioners, they do need to understand what architecting
is and how to organize and manage it. With that in mind,
Aerospace began working in 2002 with the chief scientist of
the Air Force, who was putting together a three-day course
in architecture-based systems engineering for upper level Air
Force personnel. This course provided a strong foundation
for a version of the Aerospace course targeted at executives
and managers.
In 2005, Aerospace was approached by another government agency that was developing an architecting program
with very similar goals. Aerospace agreed to provide an
adapted version of the modular program, and this version is
now regarded as the baseline for effective architecting education. Its fundamental structure is a two-week course, with
integrated case exercises and case studies, on the foundations of systems architecting, along with some coverage of
special topics. This is followed by a second two-week block,
again with integrated case exercise and case studies, on more
c­ omplex situations specifically tailored to
the project needs of the agency.
Program Structure
Today, the Aerospace Systems Architecting Program is one of three specializations
within the broader Aerospace Systems Architecting and Engineering Certificate Program. Students can select this specialization
after completing a set of core courses. They
may then enroll in an on-the-job training program, which involves completing
two projects overseen by a technical mentor (usually a previous course graduate or
instructor). The two projects must be for
different customers and involve an area of
business different from the student’s previous experience. At the end of the training
period, students present a briefing on lessons learned, typically to a management
audience and a forum of previous course
graduates.
The goal of the program is not simply
to convey knowledge, it is to develop active
skills and even change student attitudes
with respect to complex and ill-structured
tasks. These skills can only be developed
(and their acquisition evaluated) in realistic
task settings. One has to let the student
perform a relevant task, observe the result,
critique it, and do it again. Because skills
learned in the course apply to large-scale
design problems, they can really only be
developed and assessed through exercises
of realistic scope. To make this possible
in a time-limited course setting, specially
selected case studies and case exercises are
used.
Case studies are retrospective analyses
of past projects. They provide students
with insight into real decision-making
processes and allow them to critically analyze the results. Each case study involves
three-to-four hours of classroom work
and includes both instructor presentation
and group consideration of alternative approaches. Four major case studies (and
several smaller ones) have been developed
through a combination of archival research
and interviews with primary sources. Two
of the case studies are available for general
use (one on the DARPA Grand Challenge
and one on the Global Positioning System),
while two others are restricted to particular
audiences. Three new case studies are being
planned for a future version of the course.
In addition, a number of minor case studies
(mostly on systems of historical interest) are
used to illustrate particular points.
Case exercises are architecture design
problems executed by the students, derived
from real (or at least realistic) projects.
The Aerospace Concept Design Center is used to develop future space architecture concepts.
Basics
Art and science
of systems architecting
Foundations
of systems architecting
Aerospace
program
Architecture
frameworks
Architecture
design and
development
Electives and
future courses
Core
knowledge
Customer
program
Communicating
complex
architectures
Complexity and
uncertainty
Capstone
application
Architecting technical
intelligence systems
The Aerospace Systems Architecture Program has two tracks, which differ slightly for Aerospace and government students. Both begin with the same introductory classes. The next phase focuses on core knowledge. The
third phase is known as the capstone application. It includes various electives for Aerospace personnel.
­ everal standard exercises have been develS
oped over the life of the course. The design
of a case exercise has proven particularly
challenging, and those in use have been
extensively refined over time. The first was
based on the Triana Earth-observing satellite program and was intended to end in
a specific satellite system concept, even
though the given scenario was politically
complex and lacked any firm requirements.
More recently, two new case exercises have
been developed—one based on a hypothetical command and control system for coalition peacekeeping operations, and the other
based on a project to integrate businessoriented networks with R&D networks.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 31
What Is Systems Architecting?
If architecture is about the fundamental or unifying structure of a system, architecting must
be about setting, defining, or describing that
structure. This, by itself, does not distinguish
architecting from other systems engineering
activities. What distinguishes architecting is
the need to define and understand the specific realms of practice. To help visualize the
relationships among these realms, Aerospace
developed the so-called “footprint” table,
which describes them according to various
characteristics. For example, the footprint for
a “textbook engineering” case would show
that the sponsors and users are obvious and
available, the technology is not a challenge,
and the problem is clearly separated from the
solution. A “classic” systems engineering case
would be modestly more complex: In this
case, the technology level is typically higher
(and thus riskier), finding feasible solutions
requires sophistication in design space enumeration and optimization, and the essential
objectives of the underlying problem are no
longer presented directly but must be discovered through elicitation and analysis.
Systems architecting deals with design problems that are even more complex—problems
in which the situation and objectives are illstructured and the quality is semimeasurable.
An ill-structured problem is one in which the
statement of the problem depends on the
statement of the solution; clearly, this characterizes many real design situations. Although
designers often act as if all requirements
issues can be resolved by better elicitation,
experience shows that they cannot, even in
relatively familiar environments. In reality,
users change their own understandings of
needs and priorities when presented with
design alternatives. Semimeasurable quality
implies that the desired quality levels can be
quantitatively described, but not directly measured. For example, the desired probability
of launch failure is zero, but usually specified
as a number in the range of 10-4 to 10-6.
Such numbers can never be directly verified
because only a handful of vehicles are ever
launched. Thus, the analysis of semimeasurable quality is always a mixture of analytical
and heuristic methods—analytical methods
to verify that the models are accurate, and
heuristic methods to ensure that they are
adequate.
32 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Simple
Complex
Sponsors
One, w/ $
Several, w/ $ One, w/o $
Many, w/o $
Users
Same as
sponsors
Aligned with
sponsor
Distinct from
sponsor
Unknown
Technology
Low
Medium
High
Superhigh
Feasibility
Easy
Barely
No
Control
Centralized
Distributed
Virtual
Situation-Objectives
Tame
Discoverable
Quality
Measurable
Semimeasurable
Ill-structured
Wicked
One-shot and unstable
Textbook engineering footprint.
Simple
Complex
Sponsors
One, w/ $
Several, w/ $ One, w/o $
Many, w/o $
Users
Same as
sponsors
Aligned with
sponsor
Distinct from
sponsor
Unknown
Technology
Low
Medium
High
Superhigh
Feasibility
Easy
Barely
No
Control
Centralized
Distributed
Virtual
Situation-Objectives
Tame
Discoverable
Quality
Measurable
Semimeasurable
Ill-structured
Wicked
One-shot and unstable
Classic systems engineering footprint.
Simple
Complex
Sponsors
One, w/ $
Several, w/ $ One, w/o $
Many, w/o $
Users
Same as
sponsors
Aligned with
sponsor
Distinct from
sponsor
Unknown
Technology
Low
Medium
High
Superhigh
Feasibility
Easy
Barely
No
Control
Centralized
Distributed
Virtual
Situation-Objectives
Tame
Discoverable
Quality
Measurable
Semimeasurable
Ill-structured
Wicked
One-shot and unstable
Fundamental systems architecting footprint, as taught in the Aerospace program.
Simple
Complex
Sponsors
One, w/ $
Several, w/ $ One, w/o $
Many, w/o $
Users
Same as
sponsors
Aligned with
sponsor
Distinct from
sponsor
Unknown
Technology
Low
Medium
High
Superhigh
Feasibility
Easy
Barely
No
Control
Centralized
Distributed
Virtual
Situation-Objectives
Tame
Discoverable
Quality
Measurable
Semimeasurable
Complex systems architecting footprint.
Ill-structured
Wicked
One-shot and unstable
As an illustration of their realism, solution
elements of the R&D network case exercise
have been reused on several real projects
conducted by students or instructors after
the class.
The systems architecture program has
two tracks, which differ slightly for Aerospace students and government students.
Both begin with the same introductory
classes, “The Art and Science of Systems
Architecting” and “Foundations of Systems
Architecting.” The next phase focuses on
core knowledge. For the Aerospace track,
this phase includes the courses “Architecture Frameworks” and “Architecture Design
and Development.” For the government
track, it includes the courses “Communicating Complex Architectures” and “Complexity, Uncertainty, and Decision Making in
Architecting.” The third phase, the capstone,
entails one or more courses in which the
methods are applied to specific problems
that students are engaging. For Aerospace
personnel, there are several elective versions
available or planned. For government students, there is currently one version on “Architecting Technical Intelligence Systems.”
Course Descriptions
“The Art and Science of Systems Architecting” is a one-day general introduction to
the subject. Its purpose is twofold: First, it
provides an accessible introduction to the
core ideas for wide audiences. Second, it
helps students decide whether they should
enroll in a longer course, which would represent large investments of their time and
their organization’s resources. Many strong
engineers are uncomfortable in the environment of ill-structured problem solving and
will not become much more comfortable
with time—even with training. Helping
those people identify themselves, and steering them to other advanced professional
­educational programs, is good for them and
good for the architecting program.
“Foundations of Systems Architecting”
is a two-week course that provides fundamental training in the methods of systems
architecting and their application to realistic
situations. The first week presents all the
main technical elements of the program,
organized as a single pass through a spiral
process (known as the Aerospace Systems
Architecting Method). All of the instructional elements are applied in parallel in a
case exercise. In practice, it turns out that
a rapid introduction of the material with
immediate application is the best way to
achieve the learning objectives. It does
lead to a sense of discomfort and some
frustration in many students, but most find
The Aerospace Systems Architecting Method
Major Elements
Definition
Outputs
Purpose Analysis
Broadbased study of why
system has value
Rich picture of
­stakeholder stories
Essential assumptions
and constraints
Problem Structuring
Translation of interwoven
elements of rich picture
into tractable systems attributes
Use-cases
Structured narratives
Scenarios of systems
operation
Performance models
Conceptual models
Solution Structuring
Creation of candidate solutions that must be widely
disparate in technology
and degree of problem
coverage
Models of the
­solution
Harmonize
Combine problem and
soluton statements into
workable system concepts.
Perform consistency and
completeness checks
Group of candidate
systems
Selection/
Abstraction
Select candidate system
and move on to acquisition
Formalized architecture description
Raw needs, constraints
Existing processes
Problem
structuring
Purpose
analysis
Current-future
technology
Rich
picture
Solution
structuring
Use cases,
domain specifics
System
models
Harmonize
Architecture
descriptions
Selection/
abstraction
Candidate systems
The Aerospace Systems Architecting Method has five major elements, as shown in the top table. It was developed to define a core process model. It’s an adaptation of the standard systems engineering process, modified
to account for the spiral nature of development, the lack of a manufacturing stage, and the need to accommodate ill-structured aspects. The method has also proved to be an effective pedagogical device for presenting
heuristics. For example, a heuristic such as “The Four Whos” (which basically states, “In identifying stakeholders
of a system, always ask, ‘Who benefits, who pays, who supplies, and who loses?’ ”) is best presented as part of a
specific step—in this case, the purpose analysis step—even though it is more widely applicable.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 33
The Seven Deadly Sins of Systems Architecting
1. Don’t think, use the framework. The specified architectural framework calls
for various essential products (diagrams, tables, etc.). Therefore, just generate the
­essential products as soon as possible, and call it a day.
2. Do step 5 first. Initial steps concerning intended use, scope, characteristics, and
viewpoints are rather nebulous and don’t follow much of a process. So, just jump
ahead and build the requisite products.
3. Ignore utility. An architecture exists in its own world. The needs of users are
­irrelevant.
4. Don’t follow through. The architectural description is complete. Hand it off and
go home.
5. Assume the architect actually has power. The architect is smarter than everybody else. Tell them all exactly what to do. Never mind that you don’t control the
budget, the requirements, the contract, or the field acceptance.
6. Underreach. Everybody wants to interoperate anyway, so don’t bother precisely
specifying an interoperable core. Any details will get figured out in a committee
somewhere.
7. Overreach. Other people don’t know what they need, so be sure to precisely
detail what everybody else’s system should do.
­ orking through that frustration useful
w
(and an accurate reflection of the nature of
these projects). During the second week, the
students brief the instructors on their first
pass through the case exercise; they receive
extensive critique, and redo the process they
have been taught, culminating in a final
briefing on the last day of class. Instructors present major case studies along with
the case exercises, inviting the students to
critique them and extract important lessons.
The second week can be offered directly
after the first week, or after a break of a
month.
The next course in the sequence, “Architecture Frameworks,” is offered in recognition of the key role played by the Department of Defense Architecture Framework
and other government-specified frameworks in many programs on which Aerospace advises. The “Architecture Design and
Development” course presents a set of tools
and methods used by Aerospace in space
system and system-of-system architecting
projects. The “Communicating Complex
Architectures” course teaches customers to
document and explain complex architecture
projects. The “Complexity, Uncertainty, and
Decision Making in Architecting” course
teaches classifications and methods for
modeling uncertainty, defines three major
strategies for dealing with uncertainty, and
discusses the standard adaptations to utility
34 • Crosslink Spring 2007
calculation and decision theory in the presence of structural uncertainty.
The intent of the capstone courses is to
bring the tools taught in the basic and core
courses together in applications whose attributes extend beyond the foundational
systems-architecting model. These classes
also bring the domain specifics of a working environment into the discussion. Systems engineering and architecting are not
domain independent. Many of the most
important practices and elements of knowledge are tied to the domain of application
(e.g., spacecraft, launch vehicles, computer
networks, intelligence collection systems).
Customizing capstone courses to these domains makes it possible to ground the case
studies and exercises directly in the realities
of those domains.
Courses for executives and managers
address different sets of concerns than in
the practitioner courses. A course for executives focuses on the interplay between
organizational roles and responsibilities,
the structure of the programs, and the
technical aspects of architecting. A course
for management focuses on how managers
initiate and structure architecture projects
to maximize the likelihood of success. It
includes complete capsule descriptions of
the methods taught in the “Foundations of
Systems Architecting” course and has the
managers apply them to a set of exemplary
case exercise materials. The executive course
is structured as a two- or three-day seminar;
the manager course is a five-day class.
General Lessons
The eight-year process of developing and
refining Aerospace’s courses has taught
many lessons. The most important include:
• The case exercises are the most important part of the courses.
• Spiral processes are critical, and must
be carefully taught to overcome student
bias against them.
• Description must follow decisions—not
the other way around.
• Half the battle is avoiding a few big
mistakes.
• Domain knowledge matters, and is often in short supply.
In the beginning, it was not obvious how
much learning would take place in the case
exercises. Judging by the student evaluations, they are by far the most important
part of the course. In fact, students really
seem to internalize the concepts presented
in lecture only after they are applied in the
case exercises. Moreover, an evaluation of
the case exercises shows that a significant
amount of learning takes place between
the first and second exercises (in the foundations and capstone courses). In recent
offerings, roughly 50 percent of the total
time in the courses was spent solely on case
exercises.
Most course offerings reveal a built-in
bias against spiral or iterative design processes. Teams try to get things right the first
time, try to get the problem fully defined
at the beginning, and are reluctant to go
back and rethink their basic premises. This
is a big mistake. A willingness to rethink
from the beginning is central to good architecting. One method for overcoming this
bias is the use of a spirally oriented overall
architecting process. Students are required
to perform the case exercises using this
process model, on a schedule that forces a
minimum of two complete design cycles
during the course. Another useful vehicle
for driving a spiral process, particularly
on real projects, is the “blitz” or “charette.”
As taught in the class, this is a method for
organizing all architectural design tasks
on a strict timeline, normally two weeks or
less. This forces the group to complete all
the steps, no matter how complex and how
limited the information available, within
a limited amount of time. Of course, the
resulting product is rough, but it typically
reveals useful information about the process
and the ­underlying problems that cannot
Objectives View
Operational
effectiveness
Detection
range
Use-Case View
Define value of underlying
system or the defining decisions
in a system of systems case
Flexibility
Define the essential
Ground segment
functional characteristics
S/C Monitoring
of the system
S/C Commanding
Time to
update
Spec
Time to
replace vendor
Associated
satisfaction
models
(4π)3
1/4
Space Network
Multi-View
Conceptual
Architecture
of the System
(SNR) KTFBn
Commercial
Mission
operators
Utilities
Spacecraft
Wideband gateway
Narrowband
gateway
Advanced
EHF+
NASA and NOAA
Air Network
Recommended links
Open for trades
CONUS
White
house
NSA/NIMA
HQ
Airborne communications net
Commercial ACN
Ground Network
DOS/J
HQ
High-capacity
gateways
NASA Fiber
DOD
HQ
HQ
MSE, WIN/T
SSC/NEO
MTW
In-theater fiber
entry points
JTRS
Define
physical
components
and
their data
exchange
channels
Global fiber network
Physical Structure View
A key learning theme in systems architecture training is that the “architecture” is
conceptual: it is the set of decisions that define a system’s essential characteristics.
An architecture description represents those decisions in a set of views or models
be revealed except through an end-to-end
design cycle.
Another lesson often noted, but rarely
learned, is: Describing an architecture
comes after understanding what the architecture is. Thus, the Aerospace program
emphasizes the distinction between architecture as description and architecture as
decisions. This distinction often seems academic to students at first, but understanding
it is important for achieving success on real
ill-structured problems. For example, many
of the standards in the architecture world
focus on producing a descriptive document;
however, just as a civil architect can draw
many sets of plans describing alternative
buildings, so can the systems architect
produce many alternatives using different
framework standards. Which alternative is
preferred? In the classroom, an early focus
on the standards for the document drew attention from the more central and difficult
issue of what should the architecture be.
As a result, the course has been structured
strongly in terms of architectural decisions
rather than architectural description. This
was, and remains, a controversial choice. The
immediate pressures to fulfill the specific
requirements of various projects are usually
directed solely at producing frameworkcompliant documents, not dealing with
difficult conceptual problems in the overall
project. However, the difficult problems
invariably return again and again over the
life of a program. Failing to deal with them
early will only increase the difficulty of dealing with them later. The class has a simple
Space
segment
Mission data
processing
Standards
PT GT GR λ2 σ
Ro =
Test
Define the highest
level software
entities and their
interfaces
SEC
Other
Views
Term
Term
PLAN
C&C
SIM
SPT
GPS
CCS
CCS
Factory
Agency
Interface View
such as those depicted above. The set of views is determined by the architecture’s
purpose, and so varies from project to project. Other views may include cost, programmatic concerns, logical or data considerations, security needs, and others.
and effective mechanism for reinforcing this
lesson: All teams are required to present
their exercise results as large hand-drawn
wall charts (rather than PowerPoint slides,
for example) delineating all the various
process steps and viewpoints. There are
several advantages to this approach. First,
the ability to simultaneously see all views of
the system of interest emphasizes the need
to consider the full system from end to end;
it also makes it easy for an instructor to
jump from view to view in discussing how
the parts relate. Second, hand-drawn charts
lessen the student’s typical bias to package
a briefing, and instead emphasize the need
to provide particular information and decisions. Third, the relatively freeform nature
of hand-drawn charts tends to emphasize
content over form; instead of debates over
which sort of diagram is being used, the
emphasis is on the information being presented. The fourth principle lesson is that a
key to good architecting is avoiding common big mistakes. The major mistakes are
simple enough, and common enough, to
be nicknamed the “seven deadly sins.” An
important offshoot of the program was to
catalog common counterproductive behaviors, develop examples of each, and present
counterexamples of effective behavior.
A last hard lesson is that domain knowledge matters. From the beginning, it was
understood that architecting space systems
takes a great deal of domain knowledge—
for example, in orbital science, space environments, remote sensing performance, and
analysis of the supported operations. Some
may have hoped that systems at higher levels were somehow more generic and did not
depend on their own domain knowledge.
Experience in the Aerospace course has
been otherwise. Unfortunately, the domain
knowledge for higher-level systems is hard
to come by and not always available at
all. For example, many participants in the
courses will be working on network-centric
systems that fundamentally depend on the
provision and use of computer networks.
Just as in space systems, network-centric
systems architecting requires substantial
domain knowledge—in areas such as computer networking, communications analysis,
middleware protocols, security analysis,
layered system definition, and other analytical techniques. This skill depth is rare in
the space community, and entirely absent
in some areas where systems are operating on the cutting edge of research. As
the program has evolved, material about
­network-centric systems was added, but this
material can do little more than provide an
introduction.
Conclusion
Architectures of many sorts—system, enterprise, framework—are major concerns
in the space industry today. Through its
systems architecting program, Aerospace
is responding to the need to improve its
practices in this area as well as the practices
of the broader national security space community. The development and teaching of
this course has taught lessons that have potentially much broader applicability.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 35
Work Studies (part 3 of 4)
Aerospace personnel at all stages of their careers
share a commitment to professional ­development.
Suellen Eslinger
John Hurrell
Suellen Eslinger is a software engineer specializing in software process and software metrics primarily with ground systems. As an Aerospace distinguished engineer, she serves as a consultant and leader
for many major corporate efforts, which include research projects, task
forces, and development teams. She especially enjoys research, and
has been the principal investigator on several projects since coming to
Aerospace in 1985.
Early in her career at Aerospace, Eslinger led several teams of
young engineers working on parts of the Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC), the huge ground system the Air Force was developing at the time in Colorado Springs. “I had several teams of these
youngsters working, and it was kind of like teaching again because
some of them were very young and growing their careers. I watched
them blossom in their first jobs,” she said, referring to her teaching career before she came to Aerospace. When CSOC was well on its way,
she moved to the Air Force Satellite Control Network program office as
section manager for data-systems modernization, which became the
command and control segment.
When The Aerospace Institute was in the planning stage, ­Eslinger
was asked to be part of a team that developed the systems engineering curriculum. She incorporated software modules into the core program and the four systems engineering courses. “I started teaching
in that curriculum the first time it was given. Some courses have more
than one module—I’m the lead in putting those modules together and
in maintaining and updating them and having other people co-teach
with me.” Eslinger also helped develop the Institute software acquisition
and engineering course and the risk management course and was on
the team that put the space system test management course together.
She continues to teach in the programs and is the Institute’s software
specialist and consultant.
These projects interest and challenge Eslinger, but they are important
to her for another reason: They provide additional funding to support
efforts within her department, the Software Engineering Subdivision,
that could not have happened otherwise. “There are not many of us
in my organization—the people who are software acquisition, software process experts.
The funding from research, the Institute, and
other staff-support projects enables us to develop new material, new information, new
guidance, and to disseminate that guidance
as widely as possible. I call it force multiplier—
this funding helps us to support more programs than we ever could have supported
based on the number of people we have.”
Eslinger especially likes teaching and
guiding young people, many of whom she has mentored at Aerospace.
“Aerospace is a marvelous place to work. You must be willing to take
your love of engineering in your hand and go out with that. If you want
to achieve at Aerospace—whether you want to achieve technically or
managerially—you need to do that. I think many people in engineering
are natural introverts—they like to study, they like to do things in depth,
they are detail oriented. You have to overcome what I consider our
natural inclinations and become more outgoing, become more willing
to express your technical opinions and results orally and in writing. And
you have to be willing to accept assignments where you will have to
brief people way above your level and not be afraid to stand up and
say: ‘This is what it is.’ ”
“One of my greatest job satisfactions has been to interact as a scientist
with so many gifted engineers and colleagues,” said John Hurrell, who
retired from Aerospace as a distinguished scientist in 2004. By all measures, he has enjoyed a long and illustrious career, and his work helped
fuel some important developments in space system technology.
“I joined Aerospace in 1973 and remained in Laboratory Operations until my retirement,” he said. His work for much of that time focused on the development of solid-state microwave technology for
space applications. “Here at Aerospace, I managed a number of
sections and performed research in superconducting cryoelectronics,
gallium-arsenide and silicon microelectronics, and more recently in microwave photonics.” Those activities kept Hurrell current in technology
developments and sustained a practical background that allowed him
to contribute to a number of national security
space programs—for example: acquiring the
first atomic clocks for GPS; developing the
technology for low-noise amplifiers to replace
mixer front-ends in microwave communication
systems and solid-state amplifiers to replace
low-power traveling-wave-tube amplifiers;
and ultimately, the introduction of phased arrays for space.
“All those activities and more involved
many people both at Aerospace and the contractor community,” he said. As a scientist, he investigated how new
technology could improve system performance while providing insight
into how devices work—and how they fail—in order to determine appropriate expectations and screening procedures. Hurrell received the
Aerospace Trustees’ Distinguished Achievement Award in 1994, in part
for the program ­contributions already mentioned, and shared an Aerospace President’s Award in 2004 for guiding a nationwide recovery
effort involving the reliability of heterojunction bi­polar transistors. Also
in 2004, he received two patents for the design of an optical demodulator and a tunable optical local oscillator. He retired that same year.
“The decision to retire was predicated on the assumption that I could
continue employment as a retiree casual at Aerospace, pursuing unfinished programs and passing on some personal corporate memory
to help sustain the quality of future satellite programs.” At Aerospace,
retirees can continue working on a part-time basis and be paid up to
1000 hours per year. This phased-retirement plan is one reason why
Aerospace was selected—four times—as one of AARP’s “Best Employers
for Workers Over 50.”
“During the first year of retirement,” Hurrell said, “I worked over 900
hours, with typically six-hour days; last year I worked a little less, so I am
on the way to a soft landing, rather than failing the test of retirement.”
Gradually, he expects that new priorities outside the office, and his decreasing responsibilities within the office, will lure him away from Aerospace more and more. So far, however, he feels he’s struck an appropriate balance. “New directions after retirement can hold the promise of
excitement and newfound gratification,” he said, “but if the work continues to be creative and challenging, there is less incentive to change.”
For now, he said, access to some office space and stimulating interactions with colleagues and contractors are helping to maintain professional continuity. Hurrell will most likely continue his scientific pursuits in
some form or other, regardless of where retirement takes him. “Scientists may change disciplines,” he said, “but they seldom lose curiosity
about the world around them.”
More “Work Studies,” p. 41
Supporting the Development
of Customer Education
Many of Aerospace’s customers look to the corporation for help in
developing timely, space-related training programs that fit their
educational needs and ­missions.
Al Hoheb, Brad Ayres, Dan Bursch, Gerard Fisher, and Dana Honeycutt
A
s part of its mission to serve the interests of the
national security space community, The Aerospace
Corporation assists in the education of its customer
workforce. The Aerospace Institute, the in-house educational
arm of the corporation, supports this effort through space­related learning programs and products as well as informational resources and services. Aerospace provides educational
support to many of its customers’ in-house universities and
assigns technical-education advisors to these organizations.
Developed for employees of the corporation and the technical staffs of its customers, Aerospace courses are designed
to enhance the administration and understanding of space
programs. Their content includes policies, regulations, instructions, and standards related to customer acquisition and operations as well as space architecting methods, space systems
engineering, and technical and functional specialties.
The technical courses span space systems architecting,
space systems engineering, technologies, and science. Topics
can be as varied as the architecture and engineering on a space
program to capabilities and key processes, such as software
development and mission assurance. Other courses may deal
with requirements of quality reviews or what to look for in
testing systems performance. They also compare and contrast
the acquisition regulations for the intelligence community
with those of the Department of Defense and the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO); these regulations, in turn,
might be contrasted with those in the commercial world.
Aerospace courses provide succinct, yet comprehensive,
orientations into launch, support, space, and ground segments
and cover topics as complex as the physics and mathematics of orbital mechanics. As an example the “Colocation and
Collision Avoidance for Geosynchronous Satellites” course is
designed to educate students about the operational risks—and
practical resolution strategies—of crowded orbits. “Parts, Materials, and Processes” defines the basis for government and
industry standards and is taught by some of the experts who
wrote the standards. Other courses are designed to educate
the space workforce on high-priority topics. “Smarter Buyer,”
for example, teaches senior program managers and their staffs
about the financial pressures on the space industrial base and
how to work with industry from a financial and program success perspective.
Keys to Customer Education
Since its inception in 1995, The Aerospace Institute has
learned how to develop effective courses. Keys include conducting interviews with requesters and experts in the field
early in the course development, clearly defining the criteria
for success, and ensuring that the curriculum and courses are
aligned with customer objectives.
Understanding why the course is necessary for a particular customer is essential to determining success criteria and
course requirements. Defining success criteria is difficult, but
crucial, because it may vary with the requester. For example,
some customers want to ensure uniform training across a
wide student body, while others see comprehensive training
of individuals as most important. Some customers want a
particular class to be mandatory, while others believe a class
should be open only to a specific few.
Defining objectives—what students should be able to
perform at the conclusion of the class—is important to differentiate briefings (which impart information) from training
(which teaches skills). Often, pressure to deliver a course at
minimal cost and abbreviated schedule can influence the instructor to deliver a briefing instead of training, when it is the
training that is most needed.
Clear course objectives can also help ensure that extraneous topics won’t intrude into class discussions. Objectives
can be derived from job duties, best practices, standards, and
methods. Defining student objectives before the class begins
is a vital aspect of clarifying course requirements. Defining
expectations, candidate success criteria, and measurement of
course material retention is difficult, but addressing these questions with customers at
the beginning will ensure course results are
as close as possible to defined expectations.
Aerospace and its customers are trying
to resolve many of the same issues about
staffing: how to hire qualified people, how
to ensure they meet minimum proficiency
standards, how to educate them for different tasks, and how to ensure they understand the organization’s business methods
and its customer’s concerns. Many customers look to Aerospace to provide additional
space-related training to augment their
existing programs. Some of these customers
offer university degree-granting programs,
while others offer certificates or continuing education credit. The purpose and
design of each of these programs can vary
­significantly.
These customers are often concerned
with enhancing their own programs in
systems engineering, project management,
systems architecting, software engineering,
and testing. They turn to Aerospace for assistance because of the corporation’s success
in creating course content and training for
its own employees. Aerospace has a certification program in systems architecting, systems engineering, and systems acquisition,
and effective curriculums in software-intensive systems and test management.
Aerospace’s technical courses are attended by members of the technical staff and customers in a collaborative
setting. Students use laptops to record electronic notes and receive their customized CD for future reference.
Degree-Granting Programs
The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), in
Monterey, California, and the Air Force
Institute of Technology (AFIT), at WrightPatterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio,
have been educating space professionals for
more than 45 years. Graduates from these
schools have filled key leadership positions
in national security space; 44 have become
astronauts.
At the NRO’s request, Aerospace has
filled visiting professor positions at NPS
since 1999 and at AFIT since 2003. In
2002, the Air Force and Navy called for a
greater alliance in the educational initiatives between AFIT and NPS. Both focus
on the needs of their respective services, but
strive to address joint educational and international issues. This collaboration together
with Aerospace support has led to academic programs that connect students with
the mission of NRO technical research.
Aerospace visiting professors act as technical liaisons between the corporation, the
NRO, and each school. They help to apply
space system expertise and research, assist
in identifying top talent at the schools, and
connect students to NRO-funded research
initiatives.
38 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Aerospace courses are taught by subject matter experts. This approach requires a team to instruct on complex
topics. Here, Steve Breese leads a section of the Space Systems Development, Integration, and Test course.
Aerospace visiting professors also
f­ acilitate student research, teach selected
courses, and serve as thesis advisors. Other
Aerospace technical staff members are guest
lecturers, exposing students to experts on
launch systems, ground systems, propulsion,
space systems architecting, cost estimation,
risk management, and areas directly tailored
to the students’ design projects. In one instance, for example, Aerospace experts in
the field of optics provided hands-on support to the students as they designed the
system of a space situational awareness project. Aerospace experts also attend student
design reviews and offer their knowledge
and experience in systems architecture and
engineering.
Aerospace has been involved with developing software applications at these schools
and was instrumental in helping to establish
the Spacecraft Design Laboratory at NPS
in 1999. Experts from Aerospace’s Concept
Design Center are working annually with
the school to update its software and to
introduce students to the powerful Concept
Design Center tool. AFIT is pursuing a
similar facility and is working with Aerospace to develop its own concept design
center.
Certification and Continuing
Learning
Tremendous educational opportunities are
available to government space professionals. They may progress through career field
certifications as part of the 1990 Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act,
which established education and training
standards, requirements, and courses for the
civilian and military acquisition workforce;
they may take courses geared toward individual goals; or they may enroll in classes
that meet continuing learning requirements.
Space-related assignments often inspire
The National Security Space Institute
The National Security Space Institute
(NSSI), located close to Peterson Air Force
Base in Colorado, was commissioned by the
Air Force in October 2004 to complement
graduate education at AFIT and NPS. The
NSSI developed as a direct response to the
2001 Space Commission Report, which
detailed a shortfall in space professionals at
senior level positions as well as the need for
more space education and training across
the military. The NSSI grew out of two
other Air Force schools, the Space Tactics
School and the Space Operations School.
Together as NSSI, they are designed to
expose students to broad space concepts
with a goal of integrating space power and
military operations.
Aerospace assisted the NSSI in preparing its curriculum and works closely with
NSSI in course architecting, course evaluation, courseware validation and verification,
and instructor development. In particular,
Aerospace advises course development in
science and technology, space capabilities,
acquisition, systems engineering, operations
support, and the national security space
contractor base.
Space and Missile Systems Center
The Space and Missile Systems Center
(SMC) at Los Angeles Air Force Base is
responsible for acquisition and procurement for the Air Force Space Command.
SMC looks to Aerospace for much of its
architecting, systems engineering, and engineering specialty work. Its colocation with
Aerospace headquarters in El Segundo,
California, makes it easy to provide training, and the two organizations have a nearly
seamless registration system with high
SMC participation in Institute courses.
Aerospace designed and delivered the
mandatory one-day systems engineering
revitalization course for SMC, was the chief
technical advisor to the six-week training
program for personnel new to space acquisition, and is working with SMC on requirements for a new space test school as well as
planned certifications for systems engineers
and project managers.
The Aerospace Institute Technical Course Completions
1800
1655
Total completions
Aerospace
Customer
1600
Number of completions
government employees to complete certifications or take advantage of staff development options.
Aerospace technical advisors assist certification and continuing learning programs
at many of its customers’ schools, including
the National Security Space Institute, Space
and Missile Systems Center, NRO, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, and most recently,
NASA.
1400
1200
1000
800
600
720
634
754
1228
915
822
679
1529
668
901
738
644
584
628
985
670
400
200
0
86
2000
75
2001
154
2002
177
2003
Fiscal year
2004
2005
2006
From 2000 to 2006, Aerospace and its customers witnessed broad growth in the number of courses attended
by employees.
National Reconnaissance Office
In 2004, the NRO began offering a professional development and certification
program in space systems engineering. It is
a three-level program requiring prior technical education and systems engineering
experience and training. Students must have
a bachelor’s degree in physics, mathematics,
engineering, or a related field, and experience in areas relating to systems engineering—from either government or aerospace
industry.
Aerospace was asked to help establish
this program because of its longstanding relationship with the NRO and also because
of its experience in developing successful
training programs. The objective was to
develop a curriculum that complemented
NRO parent-agency programs while avoiding any redundant training requirements.
The NRO’s workforce is made up of
military and civilian employees from
many Department of Defense and intelligence community agencies. This fairly
new program is a combination of existing
NRO courses, traditional academic courses,
commercial training, and newly developed
classes. Course topics include risk management, requirements development, concepts
and architecture, integration, validation and
verification, decision analysis, and measurements and analysis. More than 375 employees have attended at least one training
class, and the program is certifying systems
engineers at the rate of 10–12 a month. To
date, 160 engineers have received certification. The success of this program has led to
potential expansion into other areas of the
U.S. government.
The training consists of three levels:
Level 1 for new systems engineers who
have a basic understanding of the field
and its application to space; Level 2 for
experienced systems engineers with added
training in specific areas related to their job
responsibilities; and Level 3 training is being designed to provide new material for
senior engineers to assist them in managing
highly complex development activities. In
the meantime, Level 3 certification will be
awarded to engineers who have received
certification from the International Council
on Systems Engineering. Applicants to
these certificate programs may substitute
six graduate semester hours of prior systems engineering–related training for any
of the Level 1–3 training requirements.
Additionally, any student with a master’s
degree or Ph.D. in systems engineering will
automatically receive Level 3 certification.
A legacy certification option is available to
senior systems engineers who have a specific
amount of experience and are able to meet
the training requirements.
NASA
Aerospace recently began assisting the
NASA Academy of Program/Project and
Engineering Leadership as it works to
enhance systems engineering capability
throughout the agency. Aerospace will provide an independent assessment of NASA’s
systems engineering development process,
offer guidance and suggestions for improvement, and compare the program with similar endeavors in the national security space
community.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 39
Systems Engineer
Competency Model
This model will be used to:
• Screen external candidates for hire
• Conduct internal assessments
• Drive training content
• Perform active career management
Personal behaviors
Leadership skills
• Has the ability to influence
• Has the ability to work with a team
• Has the ability to trust others
• Communicates vision and technical steps
needed to reach implementation
Attitudes and attributes
• Has intellectual self-confidence
• Has intellectual curiosity
• Has ability to manage change
• Remains objective and maintains a healthy skepticism
Communication
• Advances ideas and fosters open two-way discussions
• Communicates through storytelling and analogies
• Listens and translates information
Problem solving and systems thinking
• Manages risk
• Thinks critically and penetrates a topic in a
methodical manner
Personal training is planned in each axis
depending upon what the individual
brings to the assignment and the content
of the assignment.
Technical
knowledge
• Expresses a technical grasp of systems
engineering at all levels
• Is a generalist in nature, with proven
technical depth in one or two systems
engineering disciplines
• Knowledge is unique to each systems
engineering discipline, e.g., flight systems,
mission operating system, radar,
Process
avionics, software, etc.
Has proven knowledge of systems engineering practices. The ten systems
engineering functions at JPL include: develop system architecture, develop and
maintain requirements, develop and maintain interfaces, manage technical resources,
analyze and characterize the design, verify and validate, manage risk, conduct
reviews, manage and control the design, and manage the systems engineer task.
Systems engineering accountabilities are different for every organization, requiring specific competency models be developed for each.
Here is an example of JPL’s systems engineering competency model.
Aerospace will present recent research
findings on these issues by members of its
technical staff and will identify resources related to developing systems engineering capabilities. The work builds upon Aerospace’s
growing expertise in integrated methods of
developing systems engineering capability
at the individual, team, and organizational
levels.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL), like
most Aerospace customers, wants to improve its employees’ systems engineering
skills and has begun a systems engineering
advancement program to help achieve this
objective. The goals are to measurably improve the practice of systems engineering at
JPL, to help increase efficiency and decrease
the risk associated with the development
and operation of JPL flight projects, and to
ensure a steady supply of qualified systems
engineers with needed critical skills.
The multipronged program is designed
to address the need for recruiting, assessing,
and training people. To this end, JPL has
created a systems engineering competency
40 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Aerospace helped JPL develop courses in the process dimension and
also in the application of the systems engineering practices to the
technical discipline.
model and systems engineering training
courses and has implemented programs
for on-the-job training, mentoring, and
recruiting of systems engineers. Aerospace
assists with course design and development and is also working with JPL on the
process dimension of its competency model
and application of the systems engineering
practices to technical disciplines. The systems engineering advancement curriculum
now includes systems engineering courses
oriented toward specific disciplines; for
example, classes are offered in instruments,
mechanical systems, mission architecture,
and flight systems.
Conclusion
Aerospace is frequently asked to assist its
customers as they develop their technical
education curriculums. The corporation’s
extensive history and involvement in U.S.
space systems development and its ability to
teach evolving technologies and skills to its
own workforce have made it a prime educational partner to many U.S. government
agencies.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Heidi Davidz and Matthew
Marshall for their assistance in the preparation
of this article.
Names and Contacts
Please contact the following Aerospace employees with any questions about these programs:
Bradley Ayres, [email protected], Air
Force Institute of Technology, www.afit.edu.
Dan Bursch, [email protected], Naval
Postgraduate School, www.nps.edu.
Heidi Davidz, [email protected], NASA,
www.nasa.gov.
Gerard Fisher, [email protected], National
Reconnaissance Office, www.nro.mil.
Al Hoheb, [email protected], Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force
Base, www.losangeles.af.mil.
Dana Honeycutt, [email protected],
National Security Space Institute, www.peterson.
af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4933.
Matthew Marshall, Matthew.Marshall@aero.
org, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, www.jpl.nasa.gov.
Work Studies (part 4 of 4)
Aerospace personnel at all stages of their careers
share a commitment to professional ­development.
Pete Thomas
Karolyn Young
Pete Thomas, senior project engineer in Aerospace’s Albuquerque office, specializes in developing small experimental satellites. Like many
engineers at Aerospace, he finds it hard to describe a typical day. “I
work as a systems engineer for small satellite development at the Air
Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).” AFRL does space-vehicle integration and testing (I&T) as well as operations in Albuquerque after contracting with vendors for development of the satellite bus and payload,
he explained. His role in the process entails “lots of travel and insight,
technical management of vendor development efforts, CONOPS (concept of operations) and requirements development, operations planning, procedure development for test and satellite operations, I&T execution….” In short, he said, “There is no such thing as a typical day.”
That’s partly what he finds most interesting about his work. “I enjoy
the opportunity to never see the same thing twice, and the relatively
short time scale of the small satellite developments.” Certainly, his assignments tend to be quite varied, and usually place him on the cutting
edge of space system technology. Past projects have involved developing instruments for measuring the effects of optical turbulence on electro-optical systems and analyzing flight trials of a CO2 Doppler Lidar
system flown over Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. His work in
closed-cycle cryogenic systems for infrared (IR) sensors led to designs
for components of both SBIRS Low and the Hubble Space Telescope’s
NICMOS camera. He also helped prepare AFRL’s COOLLAR and
Cryogenic Flexible Diode Heat Pipe experiments for the space shuttle.
His involvement with the MightySat II.1 minisatellite helped put the first
Fourier-transform hyperspectral imager in space. His background in
thermal management and jitter control also proved valuable for the
Space Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment. He served as lead
engineer for AFRL’s track sensor on the NFIRE satellite, designed to
measure optical and IR signatures of target plumes during fly-by.
“I enjoy a very large sense of autonomy that both my customer and
Aerospace allow in working on small spacecraft demonstrations for
AFRL,” Thomas said. “This is always backed, however, with the strength
and capabilities of Aerospace’s Engineering
and Technology Group and a large corporate body of knowledge. It’s easy to do the
job with an army of brilliant people just a
phone call away.”
Thomas is among the growing group of
technical specialists who have chosen to
extend their breadth of knowledge though
the Aerospace Systems Architecting and
Engineering Certificate program. In fact, his
work with MightySat II.1 began as a directed
internship—one of two he had to complete before receiving his Aerospace Systems Engineer certificate. “I wanted to combine the ‘book
smarts’ and formal instruction from experienced teachers with my dayto-day learning of the job.” Thomas said. “I realized that systems engineers were made, rather than born, and that the Institute could hand
down a lot of information, from decades of corporate experience, to
get me further and faster up the learning curve.” His experience in the
program instilled several valuable lessons. Two of the most important:
“You can understand the details only as well as you can understand the
whole,” and “It’s not the hardware that makes it work, it’s the people.”
The program, he said, gave him exposure to experienced colleagues, familiarity with the tools of the corporation, and a broad vision
of how Aerospace does its job.
“We do the right thing for the right reasons—every time,” said ­Karolyn
Young, senior project engineer in the Imagery Programs Division (IPD)
in Chantilly, Virginia. That’s one reason why she enjoys working at Aerospace. A 26-year veteran of the corporation, Young joined Aerospace as
a summer intern after her freshman year at the University of Michigan. “I
spent several summers in the Software Architecture Department,” she recalled. “Prior to my senior year, I dropped by
the office of the director of the Astro­dynamics
Department, introduced myself, shared my
goals, and asked for a summer job. Two summers in Astrodynamics led to a full-time job
after graduate school.” (Young went on to
receive a master’s in aerospace engineering
from Michigan.) Since then, Young has assumed a variety of challenging roles—in the
Titan system program office, NRO program
offices, and the IPD, where she now works.
“As a senior project engineer for the IPD baseline system, I am responsible for addressing propulsion, thermal, structures, and mechanism issues related to the spacecraft,” she explained. A typical day might begin
by reviewing design specifications and coordinating expertise from the
engineering group to address technical challenges. “The customer is often consulted to obtain buy-in to the corporate recommended solution,”
she said. Technical exchanges with her contractor counterparts continue
all day to ensure that all data are available to analyze. “The goal is to
have a strategy for closure of issues and action items,” she said. Eventually, these efforts lead to a properly built spacecraft that is ready and
compatible with the launch system.
In the course of her career, Young took advantage of the educational
and career-development opportunities available through The Aerospace
Institute. In fact, she’s among the graduates of TIER (Teamwork, Innovation, Excellence, and Resources), part of the Aerospace corporate
development programs. “Through TIER, my network at Aerospace was
broadened,” Young said. “That has enabled wider exposure with Aerospace management and my peers, whose talents are brought to bear in
working issues for my system program office. It has also been a catalyst
to branching out into the space vehicle system program office.”
Participation in TIER has helped shape her management philosophy.
“Leadership skills can be taught,” she said, but “using them effectively
takes genuine concern for people and vision by the individual.” Such
concern and vision are honed by experience, she said, and by adapting
to a variety of situations and environments—which may be positive, negative, or challenging. “Excellent leaders don’t manipulate others through
techniques. They employ techniques to bring out the best in others for a
common goal.” Two hallmarks of effective leadership—respect and humility—“come from the character that a person develops in life,” she said.
Young’s respect for education has brought her not just to the student’s
desk, but to the teacher’s podium as well. Young teaches the “Launch
Systems Overview” course and is involved in the “Learning the Culture of
Aerospace” class. “An individual learns by teaching,” she said. “As lead
instructor for the ‘Launch Systems Overview’ course, I’ve had the opportunity to learn from—and coordinate the efforts of—technical experts in all
fields related to launch system design, development, and operation. That
was an awesome experience.” Imparting knowledge, trying to challenge the students, and being challenged in return is particularly rewarding, Young said: “It has made me appreciate my job and the significance
of the Aerospace contribution to national security space even more.”
Research Horizons
Independent R&D at Aerospace
R&D as a Tool to Enhance Technical Development
John Fujita
Independent research opportunities help keep scientists and
engineers engaged, motivated, and technically proficient.
The Aerospace Independent Research and Development (IR&D)
program is one of many corporate investments that enable the
technical staff to develop the skills and tools needed to support the
evolving requirements of national security space. Within Aerospace,
a culture of accountability has been embraced that challenges the
staff to strive toward independent thinking and technical excellence.
This accountability encourages the scientists and engineers to think
about each program and to consider many different aspects of the
technical issues facing the customers’ missions. If there are potential
problems, each employee is accountable for ensuring that Aerospace
management is fully engaged. Thus, there is a need and motivation
for Aerospace staff members to keep their technical edge sharp.
Aerospace serves an important function as the corporate memory and knowledge repository for the national security space community. It doesn’t manufacture products in the traditional sense—its
primary product is technical expertise. So, while commercial ventures may use R&D funding to create and develop new product
lines to sell, Aerospace uses these resources to make scientific and
engineering contributions in support of the national security space
community and to continuously build its technical know-how and
capabilities. Aerospace’s IR&D program challenges the technical
staff to think creatively and independently. It also enables them
to explore scientific discoveries along with new technologies and
­applications.
Aerospace’s IR&D program is competitive. Each year, the program reviews significantly more proposals than it can explore.
Aerospace works with its partners to ensure that its research
efforts are aligned with their mission areas. Each year, Aerospace
gathers a list of technology topics from major customers, which are
used to measure each IR&D proposal’s relevance to the national
security space mission. Proposals that do not directly tie to a technical topic are always welcome, but they bear the additional burden of
demonstrating their national security space relevance. The technology topics are grouped into seven broad areas: communications and
navigation, electronic devices, information science, spacecraft and
launch vehicles, space and launch environments, surveillance, and
systems engineering and modeling. Within these groupings, the
research can be fairly diverse.
Each proposal is further scrutinized to gauge its appropriateness,
innovation, feasibility, potential for skills development, and capacity
for expanding the corporation’s technical breadth and reputation.
While some projects seek to create an entirely new set of technical
skills, many serve to enhance existing skills and to safeguard endangered skills—that is, the critical know-how acquired through years
of experience that might get lost if it were not passed on to the next
generation.
At the core of Aerospace’s technical investment program are the
ideas generated by the staff and customers. Some ideas could be
categorized as linear or evolutionary, while others are revolutionary
and seek to change the order of things. Both have a place and are
valued. The key is to capture and exploit as many of these ideas as
42 • Crosslink Spring 2007
John Fujita
practical and to keep employees continuously thinking. Some of
these projects require the construction of specialized hardware to
test the underlying theories and concepts, and the development and
maintenance of these installations enhances both staff expertise and
corporate capability.
One recent example is an IR&D project that involves a testing
and modeling program designed to investigate complex cavitation
dynamics in turbo-pump inducers. This project required the construction of a state-of-the-art flow-test facility. Another example is
a project geared toward optimizing and automating acquisition of
laser signals, which produced a test bed that simulates the separation between two satellites in a laser communications link. This
effort helped enhance cross-disciplinary activity by combining the
talents of both the Electromechanical Controls Department and
the Digital and Integrated Circuit Electronics Department.
Some projects can seem highly specific, even esoteric. For example, one recent initiative found a creative way to predict thermal
transfer in ball bearings. Another focused on developing numeric
models for predicting wall erosion in Hall-effect thrusters. However, these projects play a critical role in keeping Aerospace’s technical staff close to many of the technology areas that are affecting
space systems.
Other projects seek to produce more immediately tangible benefits. For example, a novel process for making microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) from silicon dioxide and implanting them on
or within a silicon substrate could have broad applications. Similarly, a set of nondestructive, noncontact techniques to inspect multi­
layered photovoltaic semiconductors for crystalline defects could
lead to the first statistical model to predict solar-array failure.
Where possible, Aerospace shares the results of these research
endeavors so that the lessons are available to the broader space systems and technical communities. Aerospace’s Technical Investment
Program produces numerous publications each year and supports
many conferences and symposia. Some projects result in patents.
Aerospace regularly showcases some of the intriguing research
and creative ideas that have sprung from the IR&D program in
­Crosslink’s Research Horizons.
Analysis of Security Threat Group Networks
Gangs, antigovernment groups, and terrorist organizations pose increasing concerns for the homeland security, law enforcement, and
intelligence communities. Understanding how the members of an
adversarial group communicate and interact could help to contain
the threats they pose.
Karen Jones of Civil and Commercial Operations heads a team
investigating whether data-mining techniques such as link discovery
and social network analysis can be used to monitor such groups. The
team, which includes Donna Nystrom and Frank Meng of the Advanced Information Systems Technology Department (AISTD), is
developing a data-mining prototype based on open-source software.
While the technology could be applicable to various security
threat groups, Jones’s team will initially focus on prison gangs. “We
have chosen prison gangs as our focus for several reasons,” Jones
explained. “The corrections domain presents a small, regulated, and
closed-world social system, where it is feasible to record outcomes
and measure overall system performance for testing Aerospace’s
link-discovery and social-network analysis tool,” she said. Corrections systems collect a vast amount of data on each prisoner:
Interactions such as phone calls and personal visits are logged,
prison bank transactions are recorded, and incident and investigation reports are written up with valuable historical and personal
information. Moreover, within the corrections domain, the cost of
false positives is much lower than for systems operating within the
general society. In addition, because a prisoner’s gang affiliation is
typically known, the researchers should be able to identify which
interactions are within gangs and which ones are between gangs.
Link discovery identifies both obvious and nonobvious relationships between entities—in this case, inmates and some of the people they interact with. “For example,” Jones explained, “an obvious
relationship exists between inmate A and inmate B when both are
caught together trying to smuggle drugs while distributing laundry.” But suppose that prior to this incident, prison records showed
that inmate A called person C (outside the prison) and that inmate
D wired money to person C; then, nonobvious relationships exist
between person B and persons C and D. Persons C and D could
be related by financial transactions, but such information does not
Input
Cleansing and
conditioning
Link
discovery
Visitor
records
Pattern-based
query
Bank
transactions
Incident
logs
Disciplinary
records
Warehouse
Bunk & work
assignments
Gang
affiliation
Conviction
history
Address &
employment
mean much unless there is a link to the drug-smuggling incident.
This link could indicate that C and D might be part of the drugsmuggling ring to finance and transport drugs into the prison. “A
money transfer might appear innocuous as a stand-alone incident,”
Jones said, “but within the context of the drug smuggling incident,
it appears as a suspicious link between a larger group of people.”
With enough links, social networks begin to emerge. Some of these
networks could represent security threat groups or, in this case,
prison gangs that continue to orchestrate crimes, traffic drugs, and
commit violent acts while in prison. “Applying social-network analysis techniques allows the Aerospace data-mining team to analyze
and map flows and relationships within groups—­identifying core
members, ringleaders and peripheral members—as well as hostility
or collusion between gangs,” Jones said.
Jones and her team met with representatives of one of the largest state correctional departments and developed a memorandum
of agreement. The department has a vast amount of data on the
prisoners and staff in its 53 correctional institutions and maintains
statistics to better understand trends, costs, and prisoner demographics. The Aerospace team hopes to identify specific patterns of
behavior and, when certain patterns emerge or change, to use the
tools to predict events such as violent gang incidents, drug smuggling, or escape attempts. Such data could help correctional officers
secure the safety of the inmates and staff. Prison officials could separate hostile factions to preempt violence and separate those who
have colluded to commit crimes or engage in disruptive behavior.
AISTD has established a data-mining center, which includes
a ­secure server and computer operating on an isolated network.
­Nystrom manages the center, where the project team is now mining
the last three years of such inmate-related data as visitor logs, prison
bank records, incident records, investigation reports, offense and
disciplinary records, and home addresses.
Jones notes that rigorous ethical standards have been applied
throughout the project design: “In a country where there is little
tolerance for privacy-rights violations, mining corrections data
stands up as an activity that serves the legitimate institutional interests of corrections—to monitor and protect inmates.”
Entity-based
query
Unconstrained
query
Analysis
Results
Output
Social network
analysis
Pattern
analysis
Predictive
analysis
Iterative
query
The Aerospace data-mining process entails sifting through vast troves of data, applying link discovery techniques, and analyzing any patterns that result.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 43
Research Horizons
(continued)
Devising a Ground System Cost Model
Space systems cost estimation has a rich history and a collection
of established cost-estimating methodologies. Yet, one area that is
still not well understood is satellite ground segment cost estimation.
Tim Anderson of the Systems Architecture, Engineering, and Cost
department notes that while the cost-analysis community has focused much attention on estimating the cost of spacecraft acquisition, the ability to predict the cost of a new ground segment acquisition remains elusive. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps
the most important is that, unlike satellite acquisitions, in which a
fully developed system is delivered with all of its hardware and most
of its software functionality, ground segments tend to lack such
temporal standardization. “One organization might acquire an entire ground segment, including ground terminals, mission management and mission data processing, new facilities and the like, while
another ground segment acquisition might include nothing more
than an upgrade to an existing function, such as data dissemination
improvements, or added capability to handle an additional mission,”
Anderson said. Thus, the database from which to develop ground
segment cost-estimating relationships is highly disparate, and it is
difficult or impossible to develop reusable hardware-based or function-based cost models for these systems. Consequently, ground
segment cost estimates are usually based on one or two loose analogies, or worse, constructed using engineering build-up techniques in
which the technical variables (e.g., software lines of code, quantities,
staffing requirements) are rough estimates themselves. “The result is
that acquisition managers usually get burned by unrealistic ground
segment cost estimates,” Anderson said.
Since modern ground segment acquisitions span the gamut from
plug-in components of an existing system to an entirely new system
built from scratch, an optimal cost model should contain a set of
fundamental building blocks, or “costable” elements, that can be
pieced together depending on the specific architecture under consideration. In addition, the cost model should be based on recent
and relevant historical cost data. Various organizations—including
Aerospace—have attempted to construct robust models in the past,
but these were generally limited in scope and not widely applicable.
Thus, there is no comprehensive ground segment cost model in
widespread use in the industry.
Anderson is attempting to bridge this gap by developing such a
model. His research so far has focused on defining a fundamental
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)—the list of everything that
has to be paid for to bring a system to its full operational capability—and initial data collection. Anderson’s WBS is different from
a traditional WBS in that it is described in the form of a matrix
rather than a hierarchical decomposition of cost elements.
“The WBS separates typical ground segment functions from
temporal acquisition functions, enabling one to cherry-pick the elements to be costed for any given acquisition,” Anderson said. The
structure was conceived and developed by Anderson with the assistance of a group of six systems engineering and operations research
masters’ students from George Mason University. The students, all
with military or industry backgrounds, volunteered to develop the
structure as their senior project. They spent a semester working with
Anderson and Frank Donivan of Civil and Commercial Operations
to develop a draft WBS. Following delivery of the draft WBS, the
structure was further refined through extensive consultation with
Aerospace program offices representing the Space and Missile Systems Center, the NRO, and NOAA.
The elements on Anderson’s list, which can be tailored to any
foreseeable ground segment acquisition, have been chosen such that
their costs can be theoretically predicted on the basis of independent variables such as functionality, complexity, acquisition volatility,
and the like. “The idea is to be able to select from the set of WBS
elements in the matrix only those elements that are relevant to the
acquisition in question,” Anderson said. “This selection then forms
the basis of the elements whose costs are to be estimated.” With
the completion of the WBS design, cost data for relevant historical ground segments are now being researched to develop realistic
cost models for each element. Anderson hopes that this cost model
will enable cost analysts to produce high-quality rough-orderof-­magnitude cost estimates for use on programs in the earliest
acquisition phases, when systems are not yet sufficiently defined to
produce an engineering buildup cost estimate.
Successful completion and application of this model will position
Aerospace as a leader in the ability to estimate the cost of virtually
any satellite ground segment acquisition. “This is a natural role for
our company,” says Anderson. “Like the Aerospace Small Satellite
Cost Model, the Ground System Cost Model will be the model to
turn to when our customers need a realistic general-purpose ground
segment cost-estimating methodology.”
Cost Elements
Architecture Elements
Item#
1.0
Description
Common
Elements
Program
Mgmt
GS Development
Systems
Eng.
PM
SE
S/W
I&T, and
transition to
ops
H/W
IAT
Operations & Maintenance
O&M Labor
O&M S/W
TOP LEVEL ELEMENTS
1.1 Top Level Elements
2.0
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
2.1
Ground Terminal (Antenna and
radome)
2.2 Ground Facilities/Building
2.3 Ground Support Equipment
2.4 Site Activation
2.5
3.0
Factory/Contractor Ground Segment
Support Facility
PRIMARY FUNCTIONS (PEOPLE,
SW, HW)
3.1 Command and Control
44 • 3.2
Crosslink
Spring 2007
Mission Management
3.3 Ground Support Functions
Most published WBS’s are linear, and represent a laundry list of hardware, software, staff hours,
and other items. The Aerospace WBS is a matrix, which allows the user to select specific architectural and temporal elements. This approach provides more flexibility for cost estimating.
O&M H/W
Human Systems Integration Risk and Cost Models
risk impact and cost modeling. The review focused on HSI in the
acquisition process, searching in particular for information regarding cost-benefit analyses for HSI investments. The review revealed
that two commonly used cost models at Aerospace—COCOMO/­
COSYSMO and SEER-SEM—do not support easy separation of
HSI costs.
Dawes’s team assembled a focus group to elicit information
regarding the management and cost containment of HSI efforts
during system acquisition. The goal was to gauge the interest in addressing these concerns and to determine which areas to address
first. The group included Aerospace personnel from the engineering
division and program offices as well as Air Force program office and
user representatives.
The results from the focus group fell into two distinct categories:
early HSI acquisition questions, and concerns about the risks and
impact of deleted and deferred HSI work. In particular, decisions
about staffing profiles and automation during system development
proved most problematic. “Of significant concern was the increased
cost associated with adding personnel (either military or contractor), changing personnel from military to contractor, and maintaining a larger-than-expected cadre of contractor personnel for years
after operational turnover to support operations,” said Dawes. Also
significant was the concern for the cost trade-off between the level of
automation designed into the system and the proposed staffing mix.
“Both these key concerns require that risk assessment and cost estimation be addressed simultaneously and account for changes in riskcontrol options throughout the acquisition lifecycle,” Dawes said.
Working with Carolyn Latta of the Cost and Requirements
Department, the team (which also included Bettina Babbitt, Stephanie Heers, and Barbara Jex Courter) selected a formal probabilistic
risk assessment approach that supports the estimation of the cost
and benefit of each specific risk-control option, including prevention and mitigation. This approach takes as the basis of cost-risk
the actual risks that a program faces, determines the probability
distribution of each risk, and uses this information to determine the
uncertainty in the cost. This approach links cost-risk to
risk ­management.
Approach/style
The team is now using this approach to develop and
100
test models using scenarios that reflect the major areas of
concern expressed by the focus group. “For example,” said
None
Dawes, “if the cost and risk of making a system highly
75
automated far outweighs the benefit of reducing the skill
level and number of personnel, then the program office
may make that decision earlier in the development life
50
cycle. This provides the program office with quantitative
Reactive
data to support their decision and enables the government team adequate time to plan for changes in the
25
personnel mix.” On the other hand, results for a program
Proactive
may indicate that spending resources on developing a
more automated system will significantly reduce person0
nel costs over the long term. “To the extent that programs
Design Implementation
Operation
have this information earlier in the acquisition life cycle,”
Dawes said, “costs may be reduced even further.” Once
Human systems integration represents a significant portion of overall life-cycle costs for complex space systems. An early focus can increase design costs, but decrease operational costs
these models are developed, additional focus groups will
in the long run. While a reactive approach may appear to save some money as the system is
be convened to assess their effectiveness in addressing
being developed, it may prove far more expensive overall. (Figure reference: “A Business Case
HSI cost drivers across the ­acquisition life cycle.
for Human Factors Investment,” Eurocontrol Report HUM.ET1.ST13.4000-REP-02.)
Percentage of total system cost
spent detecting and resolving
human performance issues
Human systems integration (HSI) combines human factors analysis, safety assurance, and training to ensure that systems accommodate the capabilities and limitations of their users. Space systems
acquisitions have inherent HSI challenges, particularly in regard
to the increasing information demands on operators, the need for
operators to perform new and different jobs, the pressure to reduce
staff size, and the rising demand for rapid and accurate responses to
dynamic mission environments.
Integrating users in complex systems represents 40–60 percent
of life-cycle costs, according to a 2004 report from the U.S. Air
Force Scientific Advisory Board. Successful implementation of HSI
can result in major reduction in costs in areas such as the number
of personnel required by the system, time and resources for training, error and accident rates, error recovery time, and speed and
proficiency with which personnel operate, maintain, repair, and
deploy the system. Aerospace-supported programs that did not
adequately address user integration have encountered a number of
problems during turnover to operations, such as the need for significant system redesign, delays in operational acceptance, the need
for more personnel with greater skills, and the need for additional
operator training. One program in particular may require more than
$60 million in additional funds to resolve outstanding user integration issues and sustain the increased number and skill level of
personnel needed to operate and maintain the system, according to
Aerospace estimates.
Clearly, program offices need tools to assess the potential impact
of decisions regarding user integration at various phases of acquisition, and Aerospace needs a method for systematically assessing the
risks and impacts of deferred, descoped, or eliminated HSI work.
Suzanne Dawes of the Ground Systems Support Office heads
a team that has been trying to identify or develop such a method.
The project has been challenging, partly because of the historical
lack of focus on HSI as a distinct cost factor in previous programs.
For example, Dawes’s team began with an extensive literature
review to determine what had already been done in the area of
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 45
Bookmarks
Recent Publications, Papers, and Patents by the Technical Staff
Publications and Papers
E. M. Bassett, T. S. Lomheim, J. A. Lang, and T. L. Hayhurst, “Parametric Prediction of the POD and PFA for Reflective Hyperspectral
Imaging Systems: Dependencies on Target, Scene, and Sensor Design Characteristics and Detection Algorithms,” Proceedings of SPIE:
Imaging Spectrometry XI Conference, Vol. 6302, No. 63020B (San
Diego, Aug. 14–16, 2006).
R. E. Bitten, D. A. Bearden, N. Y. Lao, and T. H. Park, “The Effect of
Schedule Constraints on the Success of Planetary Missions,” Acta
Astronautica, Vol. 59, No. 8–11, pp. 1101–1109 (Oct.–Dec. 2006).
J. B. Blake et al., “Role of Non-Adiabatic Processes in the Creation of
the Outer Radiation Belts,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No.
18, L18108.1–L18108.5 (2006).
J. B. Blake, T. Mulligan, et al., “Solar and Cosmic Ray Physics and the
Space Environment: Studies for and with LISA,” AIP Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 873, No. 1, pp. 172–178 (Nov. 29, 2006).
R. H. Buenneke, R. L. Abramson, T. D. Shearer, and P. B. McArthur,
“Best Practices for Protection of Commercial Satellite Communications Infrastructure,” 24th AIAA International Communications
Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite and
Communications Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14, 2006),
AIAA Paper 2006-5386.
J. C. Camparo, M. Huang, and J. G. Coffer, “Absorption Cross-Section
Fluctuations Driven by Continuous and Discrete Laser Frequency
Variations,” Optics Communications, Vol. 265, No. 1, pp. 187–196
(Sept. 2006).
W. T. Cerven, “Geometric Diversity and Directional Access Analysis for
Satellite and Constellation Trade Studies,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Part I, Vol. 123, pp. 481–497 (2006).
J. C. Chai, A. O. Britting, and S. Feng, “Comparison of On-Line
Lightning Monitoring System Data with Derived EM Responses
of Space Launch Systems to Lightning,” 17th International Zurich
Symposium and Technical Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
pp.132–135 (Singapore, Feb. 27–Mar. 3, 2006).
M. W. Chen, L. R. Lyons, et al., “Initial Simulation Results of StormTime Ring Current in a Self-Consistent Magnetic Field Model,”
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, No. A4, pp. A04225.1–
A04225.10 (2006).
H. Chew, “RF Spectrum Trade Space for U.S. Government MobileSatellite Service User Link,” 24th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite
and Communications Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14,
2006), AIAA Paper 2006-5387.
P. A. Dafesh and E. Grayver, “Future GOES-R Global Ground Receivers,” Proceedings of SPIE: Satellite Data Compression, Communications,
and Archiving II Conference, Vol. 6300, No. 63000D (San Diego,
Aug. 13–14, 2006).
K. D. Diamant, J. E. Pollard, R. B. Cohen, Y. Raitses, and N. J. Fisch,
“Segmented Electrode Hall Thruster,” Journal of Propulsion and
Power, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1396–1401 (Nov./Dec. 2006).
M. P. Ferringer and D. B. Spencer, “Satellite Constellation Design Optimization Via Multiple-Objective Evolutionary Computation,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Part I, Vol. 123, pp. 461–480 (2006).
J. E. Granata, T. D. Sahlstrom, P. Hausgen, S. R. Messenger, and R. J.
Walters, “Thin-Film Photovoltaic Proton and Electron Radiation
Testing for a MEO Orbit,” Proceedings of the World Conference on
Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (4th) (2006).
46 • Crosslink Spring 2007
E. Grayver, “Performance of Turbo-Coded High-Order Modulations
with Nonlinear Amplification,” 24th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite
& Communications Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14,
2006), AIAA Paper 2006-5463.
E. Grayver and P. E. Santacruz, “Effect of Nonlinear Amplification on
Turbo Coding Gain,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 9 (Big Sky,
MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
T. J. Grycewicz, B. E. Evans, C. J. Florio, and T. M. Christian, “Fourier
Plane and Optical Processing for Sub-Pixel Image Registration,”
Proceedings of SPIE: Optical Information Systems IV Conference, Vol.
6311, No. 631117 (San Diego, Aug. 16–17, 2006).
J. S. Halpine, “AC Impedance to Measure Degradation Mechanisms,”
4th AIAA International Energy Conversion Conference and Exhibit
(San Diego, June 26–29, 2006), AIAA Paper 2006-4111.
J. Hant, D. Lanzinger, and D. Sklar, “Assessing the Performance of
Packet Retransmission Schemes over Satellite Links,” 2006 IEEE
Aerospace Conference, p. 13 (Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
B. S. Hardy, R. P. Welle, and R. L. Williams, “Aerodynamically Induced
Fracture of Ice Shed from the Space Shuttle External Tank,” 24th
AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference (San Francisco, June 5–8, 2006).
J. H. Hecht et al., “The Application of Ground-Based Optical Techniques for Inferring Electron Energy Deposition and Composition
Change During Auroral Precipitation Events,” Passive Optics Aeronomy: Passive Optics Workshop (Boulder, CO, April 1–3, 2004); Journal
of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, ed. by J. W. Meriwether,
Vol. 68, No. 13, pp. 1502–1519 (2006).
M. J. Hecht, D. Buettner, and J. Hellrung, “Risk Assessment of RealTime Digital Control Systems,” Proceedings, IEEE Annual Reliability
and Maintainability Symposium, p. 7 (Newport Beach, CA, Jan.
23–26, 2006).
E. D. Jansing et al., “One-Dimensional Fractal Error for Motion Detection in an Image Sequence,” Proceedings of SPIE: Automatic Target
Recognition XVI Conference, ed. by F. A. Sadjadi, Vol. 6234, pp.
623412.1–623412.9 (Kissimmee, FL, Apr. 18–19, 2006).
A. B. Jenkin, “Maximum Deliverable Mass For Low-Thrust Geosynchronous Transfers Under Realistic Mission Constraints,” Advances
in the Astronautical Sciences, Part III, Vol. 123, pp. 2265–2284 (2006).
M. A. Johnson, “Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis of Satellite Communications in Nuclear Disturbed Environments with OPNET,”
Proceedings of SPIE: Modeling and Simulation for Military Applications
Conference, ed. by K. Schum and A. F. Sisti, Vol. 6228, pp. 622803.1–
622803.11 (Kissimmee, FL, Apr. 18–21, 2006).
J. A. Kechichian, “Optimal Altitude—Constrained Low-Thrust Transfer Between Inclined Circular Orbits,” Proceedings of SUNY-Buffalo,
Advances in the Astronautical Sciences; Malcolm D. Shuster Astronautics
Symposium, Vol. 122 (Grand Island, NY, June 12–15, 2005) (2006).
H. I. Kim, J. R. Lince, O. L. Eryilmaz, and A. Erdemir, “Environmental
Effects on the Friction of Hydrogenated DLC Films,” Tribology and
Lubrication Technology, Vol. 62, No. 8, pp. 38–42 (2006).
Y. Y. Krikorian, M. K. Sue, G. V. Leon, L. Cooper, S. K. Do, R. Kumar, D. Taggart, D. L. Emmons, D. J. Dichmann, and J. P. McVey,
­“Dynamic Proximity Communication Link Analysis Tool for Orbiting Satellites and Ground Assets on Mars,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace
Conference, p. 8 (Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
R. Kumar, “Analysis of FM Demodulator Output Noise with Applications to the Space Lift Range System,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 9 (Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
J. A. Morgan, “The Spin-Statistics Connection in Classical Field Theory,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, Vol. 39, No. 42,
pp.13337–13353 (2006).
R. Kumar and R. Martinez, “CDMA Satellite System Capacity with
Multiple-User Classes,” 24th AIAA International Communications
Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite and
Communications Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14, 2006),
AIAA Paper 2006-5392.
T. P. O’Brien et al., “Correlation Between the Inner Edge of Outer Radiation Belt Electrons and the Innermost Plasmapause Location,”
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, pp. L14107.1–L14107.4
(2006).
R. Kumar, “Power Control Algorithm and Architectures for Fading
Communication Channels,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 12
(Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
M. S. Leung, G. W. Stupian, et al., “Transport Study of a Single Bismuth Nanowire Fabricated by the Silver and Silicon Nanowire
Shadow Masks,” Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 89, No. 14, pp. 141503–
141503-3 (Oct. 2, 2006).
V. S. Lin, A. Arredondo, and J. Hsu, “Efficient Modeling and Simulation of Nonlinear Amplifiers,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 9
(Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
K. T. Luey and D. J. Coleman, “Formation of Contaminant Droplets on
Surfaces,” Proceedings of SPIE: Optical Systems Degradation, Contamination, and Stray Light: Effects, Measurements, and Control II Conference, Vol. 6291, No. 62910G (San Diego, Aug. 15–16, 2006).
K. T. Luey, D. P. Taylor, D. J. Coleman, and K. A. Folgner, “Digital
Imaging of Particulate Contamination,” Proceedings of SPIE: Optical Systems Degradation, Contamination, and Stray Light: Effects,
Measurements, and Control II Conference, Vol. 6291, No. 62910J (San
Diego, Aug. 15–16, 2006).
D. K. Lynch, R. W. Russell, et al., “Mid-Infrared Ethane Emission on
Neptune and Uranus,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 644, No. 2, pp.
1326–1333 ( June 20, 2006).
V. N. Mahajan et al., “Orthonormal Polynomials for Hexagonal Pupils,”
Optics Letters, Vol. 31, No. 16, pp. 2462–2464 (Aug. 15, 2006).
G. M. Mason, J. E. Mazur, et al., “Solar Cycle Variations in the Composition of the Suprathermal Heavy-Ion Population near 1 AU,” The
Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 645, No. 1, Pt. 2, pp. L81–L84 (2006).
A. Mathur, “Rocket Plume Attenuation Model,” 24th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual
International Satellite and Communications Conference and Expo (San
Diego, June 11–14, 2006), AIAA Paper 2006-5323.
J. E. Mazur et al., “Heavy-Ion Elemental Abundances in Large Solar
Energetic Particle Events and Their Implications for the Seed Population,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 649, No. 1, pp. 470–489 (2006).
J. E. Mazur et al., “Origin of Heavy Ions in Upstream Events near the
Earth’s Bow Shock,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 18, pp.
L18104.1–L18104.5 (2006).
J. E. Mazur, J. B. Blake, et al., “The Creation of New Ion Radiation Belts
Associated with Solar Energetic Particle Events and Interplanetary
Shocks: Solar Eruptions and Energetic Particles,” Geophysical Monograph, ed. by N. Gopalswamy, R. Mewaldt, and J. Torsti, Vol. 165, pp.
345–352 (2006).
M. J. McFadden, M. Iqbal, T. Dillon, R. Nair, T. Gu, D. W. Prather, and
M. W. Haney, “Multiscale Free-Space Optical Interconnects for Intrachip Global Communication: Motivation, Analysis, and Experimental Validation,” Applied Optics, Vol. 45, No. 25, pp. 6358–6366
(Sept. 1, 2006).
M. J. O’Brien, G. F. Hawkins, et al., “Damping Composite Materials by
Machine Augmentation,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 294,
No. 4–5, pp. 828–840 (2006).
I. A. Palusinski and I. Ghozeil, “Space Qualification of Silicon Carbide
for Mirror Applications: Progress and Future Objectives I,” Proceedings of SPIE: Novel Optical Systems Design and Optimization IX Conference, Vol. 6289, No. 628903 (San Diego, Aug. 15–16, 2006).
R. P. Patera, “Collision Probability for Larger Bodies Having Non­Linear Relative Motion,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Part I,
Vol. 123, pp. 887–900 (2006).
T. J. Paulitz et al., “Constant Force Restraints for Frontal Collisions,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D, Journal
of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 220, No. 9, pp. 1177–1189 (2006).
G. S. Peng, M. de la Torre-Juarez, R.W. Farley, and J. E. Wessel, “Impacts
of Upper Tropospheric Clouds on GPS Radio Refractivity,” 2006
IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 6 (Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
J. Poklemba and D. Wenzel, “Turbo-Product-Coded QVSB,” IEEE
Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 579–584 (Dec. 2006).
G. Radhakrishnan, P. M. Adams, and L. S. Bernstein, “Room-Temperature Deposition of Carbon Nanomaterials by Excimer Laser Ablation,” Thin Solid Films, Vol. 515, No. 3, pp. 1142–1146 (Nov. 23, 2006).
S. H. Raghavan and J. K. Holmes, “Inter-BOC Signal InterferenceTracking Loop Performance,” 24th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite
and Communications Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14,
2006), AIAA Paper 2006-5320.
S. H. Raghavan, M. Shane, and R. Yowell, “Spread Spectrum Codes for
GPS L5,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 7 (Big Sky, MT, Mar.
4–11, 2006).
K. Richardson, Z. Petrosyan, R. Abbott, D. Scott, M. Hajianpour, S.
Ghantiwala, K. Marabyan, A. Quan, R. Crawford, and D. Nystrom,
“STARS (Spacelift Telemetry Acquisition and Reporting System)
Limit Checking System,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 8 (Big
Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
P. Rousseau and J. Kemp, “Report on AMTA 2005,” IEEE Antennas
and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 177–179 (Feb. 2006).
R. J. Rudy, D. K. Lynch, S. M. Mazuk, C. C. Venturini, et al., “Early
Spectral Evolution of Nova Sagittarii 2004 (V5114 Sagittarii),” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 459, No. 3, pp. 875–883 (Berlin, 2006).
P. M. Schubel, J. J. Luo, and I. M. Daniel, “Through-Thickness Characterization of Thick Composite Laminates,” Proceedings of the 2006
SEM Annual Conference and Exposition on Experimental and Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 4 (Saint Louis, June 4–7, 2006).
R. S. Selesnick, “Source and Loss Rates of Radiation Belt Relativistic
Electrons During Magnetic Storms,” Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 111, No. A4, pp. A04210.1–A04210.8 (2006).
T. A. Moore, B. B. Brady, et al., “Measurements and Modeling of SiCl4
Combustion in a Low-Pressure H2/O2 Flame,” Combustion and
Flame, Vol. 146, No. 3, pp. 407–418 (2006).
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 47
Bookmarks
(continued)
Y. Y. Shprits, R. M. Thorne, R. Friedel, G. D. Reeves, and J. F. Fennell,
“Radial Diffusion as a Potential Source and Loss Mechanism of
Relativistic Electrons in the Outer Radiation Belt,” Report No. TR2006(8570)-3/SMC-TR-06-10 (The Aerospace Corporation, El
Segundo, CA, Feb. 15, 2006).
E. J. Simburger and W. L. Bunselmeyer, “Long-Term Storage of the
Solar Arrays for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
(DMSP) 5D3 Spacecraft,” Report No. TR-2006 (1550)-1/SMCTR-06-09 (The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, Feb. 10,
2006).
Y. Sin, N. Presser, M. S. Mason, and S. C. Moss, “Characteristics and
Reliability of High Power Multi-Mode InGaAs Strained Quantum Well Single Emitters with CW Output Powers of over 5 W,”
Proceedings of SPIE: High-Power Diode Laser Technology and Applications IV Conference, ed. by M. S. Zediker, Vol. 6104, pp. 61040H.1–
61040H.12 (San Jose, CA, Jan. 23–25, 2006).
K. Siri, M. A. Willhoff, and K. A. Conner, “Uniform Voltage Distribution Control for Series Connected DC-DC Converters,” 4th AIAA
International Energy Conversion Conference and Exhibit (San Diego,
June 26–29, 2006), AIAA Paper 2006-4133.
K. Siri, M. A. Willhoff, C. Truong, and K. A. Conner, “Uniform Voltage
Distribution Control for Series-Input Parallel-Output, Connected
Converters,” 2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, p. 12 (Big Sky, MT,
Mar. 4–11, 2006).
G. W. Stupian, “High Pressure Studies on Silane to 210 GPa at 300 K:
Optical Evidence of an Insulator-Semiconductor Transition,” Journal
of Physics: Condensed Matter, Vol. 18, No. 37, pp. 8573–8580 (2006).
D. Taggart, R. Kumar, S. H. Raghavan, G. Goo, N. Wagner, J. Chen, and
Y. Y. Krikorian, “Modeling and Simulation of Amplifier Nonlinearities for Single 8-ary PSK Modulated Signal Input,” 2006 IEEE
Aerospace Conference, p. 16 (Big Sky, MT, Mar. 4–11, 2006).
L. J. Vandergriff, “Unified Approach to Agile Knowledge-Based Enterprise Decision Support,” VINE, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 199–210 (2006).
S. Virji, R. B. Kaner, and B. H. Weiller, “Hydrogen Sensors Based on
Conductivity Changes in Polyaniline Nanofibers,” Journal of Physical
Chemistry B, Vol. 110, No. 44, pp. 22266–22270 (2006).
R. L. Walterscheid and G. Schubert, “A Tidal Explanation for the Titan
Haze Layers,” Icarus, Vol. 183, No. 2, pp. 471–478 (2006).
C. C. Wang, L. Xu, and S. Lim, “Hierarchical Modulations for Unequal
Protection,” 24th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems
Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite and Communications
Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14, 2006), AIAA Paper
2006-5372.
C. C. Wang, L. Xu, and S. Lim, “Providing Unequal Protection for
Compressed Data Using Hierarchical Modulations,” Proceedings of
SPIE: Satellite Data Compression, Communications, and Archiving II
Conference, Vol. 6300, No. 63000A (San Diego, Aug. 13–14, 2006).
F. D. Wicker, “QoS for Space Based Routers Serving Downlinks with
Time Varying Data Rates,” 24th AIAA International Communications
Satellite Systems Conference and 4th Annual International Satellite and
Communications Conference and Expo (San Diego, June 11–14, 2006),
AIAA Paper 2006-5360.
A. H. Zimmerman and M. V. Quinzio, “Impedance Changes in Li-Ion
Cells During Life Cycling,” 4th AIAA International Energy Conversion Conference and Exhibit (IECEC) (San Diego, June 26–29, 2006),
AIAA Paper 2006-4112.
48 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Patents
David A. Ksienski and Gwendolyn M. Shaw, “Phased Array Antenna Intermodulation Suppression Beam Smearing Method,”
U.S. Patent No. 7,098,848, Aug. 2006.
Active-transmit phased-array antennas have multiple directional
elements that use beam steering; however, the transmission of the
multiple communication signals creates unwanted intermodulation products in power amplifiers. Current techniques for reducing intermodulation products reduce amplifier power efficiency
or require costly development work. Physically partitioning the
array into subarrays and then physically separating the subarrays
suppresses unwanted grating lobes in the field of view, but this
approach suppresses only intermodulation grating lobe beams
and does not suppress all undesirable intermodulation product
beams, such as the intermodulation main beams. This beam
smearing method for intermodulation suppression includes angle
smearing and phase smearing. In the preferred form, the antenna
beam includes two primary main beams and two intermodulation product beams. Phase smearing uses uniform phase shifts
through subarray elements and angle smearing uses gradient
phase shifts. Beam smearing provides an increased 6- to 10-decibel intermodulation beam suppression at the cost of a minor 1decibel degradation of the desired primary main beams and can
be retrofitted into existing phased-array antenna systems.
Heinrich G. Muller, “Side-Pumping Laser and Optical Fiber System,” U.S. Patent 7,099,074, Aug. 2006.
High-power fiber lasers are being developed for remote sensing,
target identification, high-power directed-energy applications,
and long-distance free-space optical communications. Light
pumping is a key step for reaching higher output power levels.
When laser light is directed into the fiber from any side, the
laser light will pass across the fiber and not be guided through
it. Hence, redirecting the laser light along the fiber is necessary.
Current systems use various methods, all with some limitations,
including end pumping, groove pumping, directional side pumping, and amplifier fibers. This system uses the difference in optical
refraction between the semiconductor material of the laser and
an amplifier fiber, by providing the laser with an angled facet and
bringing it in direct contact with the fiber to redirect the beam
along the length of the fiber. Optical amplifier systems can be
substantially simplified using these side-pumping lasers by having direct contact and eliminating free-space optical elements.
Very high coupling efficiencies and robust operational products
are enabled with low fabrication cost.
Hsieh S. Hou, “Merge-and-Split Generalized Block Transform
Method,” U.S. Patent No. 7,099,908, Aug. 2006; “Merge-andSplit Fast Fourier Block Transform Method,” U.S. Patent No.
7,099,909, Aug. 2006.
Conventional transforms have been used for some time to compress and decompress data using radix-2 transforms. While the
traditional methods do separate and combine data in the transform domain, they can not perform true merge and split. Thus,
for example, while video composing is substantially sped up by
performing the operations in the fast transform domain with the
transform coefficients being quantized into integers, the quantization process degrades image quality. This invention provides a
true direct split-and-merge transform processing of equal-sized
data halves in the transform domain for such conventional transforms as the fast Fourier, fast Hartley, discrete cosine, discrete
sine, and discrete Karhunen-Loeve. It processes new class-block
transforms that enable true successive and back-and-forth merge
and split forward transformations without data degradation.
Temporal or spatial domain input data can be transformed into
the transform domain in the form of split halves or merged
wholes, which can then be recursively split or merged without
having to inversely transform domain data back into the temporal or spatial domain and without resulting data degradation.
Philip A. Dafesh and Tien M. Nguyen, “Quadrature Product Subcarrier Modulation System,” U.S. Patent No. 7,120,198, Oct. 2006.
This system uses both quadrature-product subcarrier modulation
(QPSM) and coherent adaptive subcarrier modulation (CASM)
to add new signals in timing, telemetry, and command links
within the existing spectral allocation. QPSM enables the transmission of a quadrature-multiplexed carrier modulation with
one or more subcarrier signals in the same constant-envelope
waveform. It can be applied to both direct and spread-spectrum
quadrature-multiplexed communication systems, including those
employing quadrature-phase-shift keying or minimum-shift
keying. QPSM can augment existing two-code spread-­spectrum
systems while maintaining a constant-envelope signal with spectral separation between existing signals and new signals with
high efficiency. CASM is a flexible, efficient GPS modulation
approach that can be tailored to different modes of operation to
provide high efficiency without altering the basic modulation
architecture. It employs a subcarrier to phase-modulate new Mcode signals on the same carrier as the current ranging codes. It
uses cross-product intermodulation terms as new ranging communication signals, and, with subcarrier modulation, interprets
cross-product terms as signals and not as losses.
Charles C. Wang and Dean J. Sklar, “Turbo Decoding System Using
nth Root Metrics for Non-Gaussian Communication Channels,”
U.S. Patent No. 7,127,000, Oct. 2006.
Conventional turbo-decoding algorithms are based on the assumption that the input sequence to the turbo decoder has been
disturbed by a noise process that has a Gaussian distribution.
Conventional turbo-decoding algorithms are optimized for
Gaussian channels for reducing the bit-error rate. But when the
actual channel statistics of the input sequence to the decoder varies significantly from the Gaussian distribution assumption, the
turbo decoder performance will degrade. This invention matches
non-Gaussian statistics to turbo-decoding Gaussian metric processing by an nth root transformation prior to turbo decoding.
Conventional turbo decoding can then be used to communicate
over a fading channel communicating differential coherent
phase-shift-keying signals. That is, the nth root transformation
provides near-Gaussian turbo-decoding metrics for conventional
turbo decoding.
Albert M. Young, Samuel S. Osofsky, Keven S. MacGowan, and
­David A. Ksienski, “Hybrid Active Combiner and Circulator,”
U.S. Patent No. 7,129,783, Oct. 2006.
The active devices that combine signals use amplifiers to provide gain. A common active combiner uses several field-effect
t­ ransistors (FETs) connected as transmission gates, but this design does not provide the reciprocity in the signal paths required
in some applications, like source-pull measurements. Circulators
that translate signals from one port to another are often used
at the front end of a transceiver system that contains only one
antenna port. Modern circulator architectures sacrifice both output power and noise figure to optimize circulator function; such
circulators operate with high noise figures and low output signal
levels, are heavy, and have large profiles. The hybrid active combiner and circulator serves as a coupler and a three-port network
that integrates a directional coupler topology with active devices
placed in the coupling paths to synthesize a low-loss active combiner circuit or a circulator device with minimal insertion losses.
The coupler can have multiple-stage amplifiers with transconductance values set according to Pascal’s triangle for improved
performance, and it can function as a low-cost and low-weight
transceiver for various communications systems.
Rouh T. Bow and Philip A. Dafesh, “Gated Time-Division-Multiplexed Spread-Spectrum Correlator,” U.S. Patent No. 7,130,326,
Oct. 2006.
The GPS modernization effort to provide a second civilian signal
on the L2 carrier frequency has added a time-division-multiplexed (TDM) combined civil-moderate and civil-long code.
The new configuration increases power consumption, making it
unsuitable for cell phones and small personal digital assistants.
Moreover, the chip-interleaved composite code requires a threelevel correlator more complex than the two-level correlator used
in existing GPS receivers. This two-level correlator uses a gating
signal to alternately gate-code the chips of both civil spreading
codes and interleave them into a composite L2CS code. The
correlator retains the reduced complexity for commercial GPS
receivers. The gated correlation process is a computationally efficient approach for the reception of the new TDM L2CS GPS
signals. In general, the gated TDM spread-spectrum correlator
may be applied to any number of TDM spreading codes. The
correlation process uses modified gating that can be generally applied to spread-spectrum systems employing chip-by-chip time
multiplexing of a composite code.
Srinivasa H. Raghavan, Jack K. Holmes, Kris P. Maine, et al., “Code
Division Multiple-Access Enhanced-Capacity System,” U.S. Patent No. 7,139,302, Nov. 2006.
In code division multiple-access (CDMA) communications, data
are formatted and the signal spectrum is spread using CDMA
spreading codes for sending signals to multiple receivers. Increasing the channel capacity increases the number of users that can
be served by a CDMA communication system; but the exclusive
use of nonreturn-to-zero, Manchester, and binary-offset carrierformatted CDMA communication systems has limited channel
capacities. This new system combines spread spectra generated by
both a nonreturn-to-zero code that formats a nonsplit spectrum
with a center peak and a Manchester or binary-offset carrier code
that formats a split spectrum with a center null. Two different
digital symbol formats on two groups of spreading codes produce
two different signal spectra with minimal overlapping. Together,
these form the composite communication signal spectrum that
enables increased channel capacity.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 49
Contributors
Aerospace’s Approach to Education
Educating Customers and Community
Bruce E. Gardner is Principal Director
of Learning Systems, The Aerospace Institute. He is responsible for directing the
planning, development, implementation,
and evaluation of employee and customer
continuing-learning and career-development programs and multimedia resources.
Gardner joined Aerospace in 1984. He
has an M.S. in mechanical engineering
from Drexel University and a Ph.D. in
aero­nautics and astronautics from Stanford
University ([email protected]).
Albert C. Hoheb, a Principal Engineer
in The Aerospace Institute, is responsible
for developing space-related technical
educational offerings for government and
commercial customers. Hoheb joined
Aerospace in 1987. He has an M.S.E.E.
from California State University at Fullerton ([email protected]).
Cognitive Mapping
Michael J. Kramer, a Senior Project
Leader in the Program Acquisition and
Management group of the Advanced
Technology Division, joined Aerospace in
2000. He has led Aerospace support for
the Agile Design and Development Program in the Advanced Systems and Technology Division at the NRO. He received
an M.S. in systems management from the
University of Southern California and a
Ph.D. in computer information systems
and education at Nova Southeastern University ([email protected]).
Developing Systems Engineers
Heidi L. Davidz is a Senior Member of
the Technical Staff in Systems Architecture, Engineering, and Cost. She advises
the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer’s
Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership in developing its systems engineering capability. Davidz joined
Aerospace in 2005. She has an M.S. in
aerospace engineering from the University
of Cincinnati and a Ph.D. in engineering
systems from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology ([email protected]).
Systems Architecting
Mark W. Maier is a Distinguished Engineer in the Electronics and Sensors
Division. He directs systems architecture
education programs and works with sensor
system and architecture definition. Maier
and Eberhardt Rechtin, former Aerospace
president and University of Southern California professor, coauthored The Art of Systems Architecting. Maier joined Aerospace
in 1998. He received an M.S. in electrical
engineering from Caltech and a Ph.D. in
electrical engineering from University of
Southern California ([email protected]).
50 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Bradley J. Ayres, Project Engineer, Tactical Development and Acquisition Directorate, serves as a liaison between the Air
Force Institute of Technology and the
NRO. He has a Ph.D. in business administration from Florida State University,
and joined Aerospace in 2005 (bradley.
[email protected]).
Daniel W. Bursch fills the NROe­ ndowed chair position at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.
Bursch retired as a captain in the Navy
and from NASA’s Astronaut Corps in
2005, later joining Aerospace. The last of
his four NASA missions was onboard the
International Space Station from December 2001 to June 2002. He has an M.S.
in engineering science from the Naval
Postgraduate School (daniel.w.bursch@
aero.org).
Gerard H. Fisher, a Senior Project Engineer in the National Systems Group, supports the NRO Systems Integration and
Engineering Directorate. He is responsible
for the systems engineering professional
development and certification program at
the NRO and joined Aerospace in 1999.
Fisher earned an M.S. in systems engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (gerard.h.fisher@
aero.org).
Dana L. Honeycutt is a Senior Technical
Advisor to the National Security Space
Institute in Colorado Springs. Honeycutt joined Aerospace in 1999. She has an
M.S. in aerospace engineering from the
University of Colorado, Boulder (dana.­
[email protected]).
Corporate University Affiliates Program
(from left to right)
Peggy C. Zweben is a Training and Development Representative, The Aerospace Institute, where she coordinates the Corporate
University Affiliates Program. Zweben joined Aerospace in 1991.
She holds an M.A. in organizational leadership from Chapman
University ([email protected]).
Gary W. Stupian, a Distinguished Scientist in the Electronics and
Photonics Laboratory, joined Aerospace in September 1969. His
work in the area of analytic instrumentation, particularly as applied to the root cause analysis of failures in space systems, earned
him an Aerospace President’s Distinguished Achievement Award
in 1994. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign ([email protected]).
Samuel S. Osofsky, Associate Director of the Communication
Electronics Department, provides technical support in the areas
of microwave systems and microwave measurements, and participates in several research projects including chaotic radar. He has a
Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of California,
Berkeley. Osofsky joined Aerospace in 1991 (samuel.s.osofsky@
aero.org).
Sergio J. Alvarado, Director of the Software Systems Acquisition
Department, leads engineering teams performing independent
assessments, research, and training to help Aerospace customers achieve successful acquisition, development, and operation of
­software-intensive ground and space systems. He has a Ph.D. in
computer science from UCLA ([email protected]).
Marian G. Peebles, Director of the Operations Center,
The Aerospace Institute, oversees corporate educational
assistance programs, university affiliations, and Institute
marketing and publicity. She has a B.S. in organizational
behavior from the University of San Francisco. Peebles
joined Aerospace in 1980 ([email protected]).
Karen L. Owens is a Senior Project Leader in the Software Acquisition and Process Department, Software
Engineering Subdivision, Computers and Software Division. Since joining Aerospace in 2000 she has supported
multiple programs preparing requests for proposals and
monitoring contracts. She has a B.A. in mathematics from
the University of California at Riverside (karen.l.owens@
aero.org).
Joseph Betser is a Senior Project Leader for Strategic
Planning, Knowledge Management, and Business Development. Betser joined Aerospace in 1991, establishing the
network management laboratory. He has M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in computer science and an executive M.B.A. from
UCLA ([email protected]).
National Trends
Michael A. Leon is a Senior Project Leader in the Economic and
Market Analysis Center, where he leads activities that research
how the acquisition of national security space systems is affected
by economics, government policies, and the defense industrial
base. He has an M.B.A. in finance from California State University at Long Beach ([email protected]).
Patricia A. Maloney is Director of the Economic and Market
Analysis Center, which strives to bring together the technical and
business aspects of national security space. Her areas of concentration are the national security space industrial base and acquisition
strategy. Maloney joined Aerospace in 2001. She has an M.B.A.
in Operations Research/International Business from Dartmouth
College ([email protected]).
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 51
The Back Page
Knowledge
Management
at Aerospace
Susan Braun, Manager,
Lauritsen Library Research Services
The Aerospace Corporation’s mission is to be the leading architect
of the U.S. national security space program and a principal technical resource for programs of national significance. To support
that mission, Aerospace employs effective knowledge management techniques to deliver, capture, and share information. While
knowledge retention can be guided by corporate process and
procedure, the quality of learning depends on employee commitment. Aerospace is fortunate to have people who are enthusiastic
about their areas of expertise and inspired by the corporate culture
to work closely with their colleagues. Some of the major tools of
knowledge management at Aerospace are presented here.
Knowledge Management Office
Knowledge management is a systematic method to assist the
corporation in the production, sharing, and retention of vital information. The Knowledge Management Office is accountable for
developing a detailed plan to guide these processes at the corporation. The intent is to explore available technologies and promote a
knowledge-sharing culture at Aerospace. The office also provides
information on emerging concepts that have potential to add
knowledge management benefits to the corporation. Corporate
initiatives for improving collaboration and stewardship to retain
knowledge are managed by staff within the Knowledge Management Office.
Technical Reports System
The Technical Reports System provides the means for delivering
data to support national security space customers. It is an important element of corporate memory by which the corporation prepares, numbers, reviews, distributes, and archives technical information. Reports provide the permanent record of the corporation’s
effort and usually constitute the only tangible end product. Such
documentation enhances the corporation’s ability to review, reference, and transfer technology and lessons learned. Proper report
distribution and archiving maximizes the flow of technical information and minimizes uncoordinated duplication of effort.
The Aerospace Institute
The Institute is an important resource for learning and knowledge
sharing at Aerospace. It fosters an environment that promotes continuing learning—knowledge acquisition—for all employees and
provides a variety of learning opportunities, including a broad curriculum of education, training, and personal development courses
and programs. The Institute also manages a full range of electronic
and print-based information resources. The Aerospace Press publishes information on critical technical topics in aerospace science
and technology; its publications are written by members of the
corporation’s technical staff.
52 • Crosslink Spring 2007
Library and Information Resources Center
The Lauritsen Library collections have been developed with an
emphasis on aerospace technology, physical and applied sciences,
systems engineering, and business management. Administered by
a staff of specialized information professionals, the extensive physical collection is supplemented with a variety of government, military, and commercial online resources made available through the
library’s Web site. These resources include the library’s catalog and
links to research databases, electronic book and periodical collections, and external government resources, as well as published articles and conference papers by Aerospace employees. The Library
and Information Resources Center has the primary responsibility
for retaining corporate knowledge.
The library administers the corporate technical-report numbering system and is the archive for all corporate-generated technical
reports, both electronic and on paper, dating from 1960. The corporate archives are the repository for papers by Aerospace presidents and corporate officers as well as members of the corporation’s
board of trustees. Other holdings include maps, photographs, and
significant corporate documents.
Databases
Aerospace relies on many databases in its work, three of which bear
special note.
The Space Systems Engineering Database contains technical
information on more than 1900 space programs, including launch
history; factory, ground station, and on-orbit anomalies; timelines
and milestones for life cycles; and configuration and hardware
documentation. Data retrieved from the collection are used for risk
mitigation, evaluation of test effectiveness, process optimization,
and defect prevention.
Aerolink, the corporation’s primary document repository, is a
Web-based application that enables users to easily collaborate on
documents, store them, and retrieve them for future use. As an active component of the corporation’s knowledge management structure, Aerolink is a secure, comprehensive tool for the storing of
formal and informal documents, both technical and administrative.
IBM Lotus Notes is the corporation’s desktop software for accessing business e-mail and employee calendars.
Engineering Matrix and Staff Rotation
Most new members of the technical staff are assigned to the Engineering and Technology Group, and as members of this engineering matrix, provide support to the various corporate program
offices. The engineering matrix contributes to knowledge sharing,
provides a context for highly specialized technical learning, and enables technical talent to be readily applied where needed.
Staff rotation is a key feature of Aerospace employment and
contributes to knowledge sharing. Technical employees can elect to
rotate from their initial job assignments into other areas to broaden
their experience and to provide their expertise to critical programs.
At the end of the rotation period, staff may move to another position or remain with the initial assigned program.
The corporation also makes extensive use of retiree casual employment. Key skills are integrated within projects and initiatives
using former members of the full-time workforce who are now
part time.
Oral Communication
Much corporate knowledge is shared orally among the staff. Three
notable projects have been implemented to capture some of this
material.
Oral histories are interviews with prominent Aerospace personnel who performed significant roles in technical programs supported
by the corporation since its founding. Oral histories allow these
noteworthy individuals to provide, in their own words, information
regarding their experiences in developing and advancing these programs. Transcripts are posted on the corporation’s internal Web site;
original tapes are retained in the corporate archives.
Aerospace Stories is a storytelling series sponsored by the library
to capture corporate memory and provide mentoring. Employees
who have played critical roles in the corporation’s history share highlights of their careers and recount their experiences with key programs or events that have shaped the history of the corporation and
the country’s space program. The sessions are recorded on DVD and
are available for checkout from the library.
Mentoring is a core value of the corporate staff. The long duration
of technical programs makes intergenerational knowledge transfer
and mentoring within the corporation very important. Senior
members of the technical staff
mentor junior staff to ensure an
effective distribution of experience to meet the corporation’s
resource requirements. The large
numbers of retiree casual employees with vast experience are a
notable complement to the existing workforce, especially in their
mentoring contributions.
Tell Us Your Story
Employees listen as retirees of the corporation share their experiences and recollections of the early days at Aerospace. The
storytelling series is an important aspect
of knowledge retention and sharing at the
corporation. Storytellers, top to bottom:
George Paulikas, former executive vice
president; Samuel Tennant, Aerospace’s
third president and CEO; and Allan
Boardman, former vice president.
Crosslink Spring 2007 • 53
Crosslink
Board of Trustees
Spring 2007 Vol. 8 No. 1
Editor in Chief
Gabriel Spera
Editor
Nancy K. Profera
Technical Editor
Paul R. Rousseau
Guest Editor
Bruce Gardner
Contributing Editors
Donna Born
Lawrence A. Palkovic
Staff Editor
Jon S. Bach
Art Director
Karl W. Jacobs
Donald L. Cromer, Chair
Howell M. Estes III, Vice Chair
William F. Ballhaus Jr.
Barbara M. Barrett
Guion S. Bluford Jr.
Rufus A. Fulton Jr.
Nelson F. Gibbs
Daniel E. Hastings
John E. McLaughlin
John A. McLuckey
Thomas S. Moorman Jr.
Dana M. Muir
M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell
Sally K. Ride
Donald W. Shepperd
James C. Slattery
Jeffrey H. Smith
K. Anne Street
Peter B. Teets
John H. Tilelli Jr.
Robert S. Walker
Editorial Board
John S. Fujita, Chair
David A. Bearden
John E. Clark
David J. Evans
Linda F. Halle
Malina M. Hills
Michael R. Hilton
Diana M. Johnson
William C. Krenz
Mark W. Maier
Dean C. Marvin
Fredric M. Pollack
Linda F. Rohlinger
Paul R. Rousseau
Gabriel Spera
Illustrator
John A. Hoyem
Photographers
Eric Hamburg
Mike Morales
The Crosslink Crossword
1
2
7
Across
1. Pencils, laptops, flipcharts
4. Piece
6. Map out (a class)
9. Examination
10. The end
11. Advisor
13. School social
15. It’s not just for athletes
17. True stories
18. Less defined
22. Ritzy folks have it
23. Brainstorm location
25. Seller of services
28. Driving, cooking, reading, e.g.
31. Word store
33. One job after another
34. Ideal
35. Give (a class)
37. Subjects
41. Shrinking
44. Getting your bearings
47. Chore
49. Namecalling
51. Class playbook
52. Quantities
53. Yardsticks
55. Group of pros
56. Papers are given there
57. Training locale
Down
1. CDs reach it
2. Holding on to
3. Visitor at work
5. Often it’s nth
6. Sphere of knowledge
3
8
13
4
9
Corporate Officers
William F. Ballhaus Jr.
President and CEO
Joe M. Straus
Executive Vice President
Wanda M. Austin
Marlene M. Dennis
Jerry M. “Mike” Drennan
David J. Gorney
Lawrence T. Greenberg
Ray F. Johnson
Gordon J. Louttit
Gary P. Pulliam
Rami R. Razouk
Donald R. Walker
Dale E. Wallis
John R. Wormington
5
6
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
20
21
16
19
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
39
40
44
36
38
41
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
56
7. Going around
8. For eyes, ears, etc.
12. Carpenter’s hangout
14. Engage
16. Apple central
17. Paper of proof
19. They’re made in snow
20. Stepping down
21. Postgrads have it
24. School survivors
26. Discussion site
27. Finishing school
29. Evaluation
55
57
30. Persuade to sign up
32. Link
36. One-way discussion
38. Where help’s wanted
39. Practice problem
40. Unit of work
42. How-to
43. Fishy crowd
45. A plane is one
46. Connection
48. Binding
50. Impart info
54. Data net
Most puzzle words and clues are from articles in this issue. The solution is on the Crosslink Web site: http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/.