14.6 The Future of Design

The term "systems engineering" was first coined in the early 1940s, and DoD began practicing the concept later that decade with the initial development of missiles and missile-defense systems. Systems engineering started gaining momentum following World War II. Because of its role in acquiring and developing large-scale, complex systems, DoD led the way in codifying the fledgling discipline by developing and releasing the first systems engineering standard in 1969. The principles in that baseline military standard (and later revisions) are still valid. Efforts aimed at revitalizing systems engineering have retained those aspects of the discipline that have proven successful in developing complex systems in the past in a framework that has evolved over time. The expectation is that this process will continue to be used well into the future.  What will change is the tools used in the process and the focus of engineering.  The future of design will probably include the following:

• A focus on shorter development times;
• Advanced Simulation;
• A connected and integrated systems engineering process;
• Increased globalization where the design, engineering and build functions all happen in different parts of the globe;
• A focus on sustainable design;
• A focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math skills.

The DOD is currently (2012) involved in two conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq).  This global war on terrorism has posed many challenges to military leaders especially in the need to respond quickly to rapidly evolving asymmetric and irregular threats (e.g. use in improvised electronic devices).  This means that the DOD needs an acquisition system that is agile and can respond to these threats quickly and provide effective responses that are affordable and perform as expected.  This is not a new problem. The DOD industry has been seeking ways to decrease the time to develop and field for new technologies and weapon systems to meet war fighter needs for over 40 years, but without much success. In fact, the time required to develop new DOD products is increasing, while in the U.S. automotive industry it is decreasing (Figure14-13). In a 2008 report by the Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise, Dr. Jacques Gansler and several colleagues recommended "Using Spiral Development to Reduce Acquisition Cycle Times" as a way to shortening development times of weapon system programs.

In a September 14, 2010, AT&L memo, Dr. Carter outlined several ways to target affordability and control cost growth.  One of the requirements was for PMs to set shorter program timelines and manage to them.  The memo noted that "The leisurely 10-15 year schedule of even the simplest and least ambitious Department programs not only delays the delivery of needed capability to the warfighter, but directly affects program cost. As all programs compete for funding, the usual result is that a program settles into a level-of-effort pattern of annual funding that does not deviate much from year to year. The total program cost is the level-of-effort times the length of the program. Thus a one-year extension of a program set to complete in 10 years can be expected to result in 10 percent growth in cost as the team working on the project is kept on another year."

Figure 14-13  Product Development Cycle Times

A note of caution.  A headlong rush towards shortening product development time without regard to trades is a surefire blueprint for failure.  If engineers push the design too hard and fast the product may not be producible, you may go too fast to adequately test and you may not fully understand all of the life cycle cost implications of the design.  Companies that get new products out the door quickly often do so by selecting design alternatives that are not state-of-the-art and often do not give you the 100% solution.  But at the same time, these choices are producible, reliable and affordable.  Shorter development times can be facilitated by advanced simulation and increased collaboration between team members.

Modeling and simulation (M&S) can be used throughout the warfare systems acquisition lifecycle. M&S can be used by all functions and used for:

• Design;
• Testing;
• Production;
• Cost modeling;
• Supply Chain and logistics.

When this guide was first written (1989) computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) were just coming into use.  Often as stand-alone systems, and often not able to communicate with other systems.  Contractors often had different versions and types of software and one would not work with the other. However, all that has changed.  Since then, most aerospace and defense manufacturers have included computer-aided engineering (CAE) and high-performance computing (HPC) in their design processes. Today advanced simulation can boost computational performance and decrease development time by:

• Improving engineering collaboration,
• Productivity and product quality,
• Shorten development costs and risks,
• Improving testing capabilities and lessening the dangers of actual testing, and
• Improving trade studies and opportunities to make affordability decisions.

A recent National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Joint Committee for Systems Engineering and Manufacturing (JCSEM) report on Modeling & Simulation Investment Needs for Producible Designs and Affordable Manufacturing noted that "in the engineering domain, mature modeling and simulation tools currently exist that can be used to quantify the feasibility of a proposed design concept's ability to meet the performance objectives, with these analyses routinely used to guide trade study analyses by providing key knowledge early in the design process. Unfortunately, in the manufacturing domain a void exists in having comparable modeling and simulation capabilities that can be used to identify and predict the severity of anticipated producibility and manufacturing concerns during early systems engineering trade study activities. Hence, innovative quantitative modeling and simulation capabilities are needed to help guide producibility and manufacturing evaluations of proposed design concepts similar to what currently exist for performance based engineering analyses throughout the conceptual, preliminary, and detail design phases of product development." Current factory simulation models focus on throughput and cycle time.  These programs allow managers to establish a factory floor or define a process flow and do trade studies on various options.  Future factory simulations will go beyond the those basic capabilities and will allow the manufacturing engineer to address:

• Sustainable manufacturing goals (energy, water and other resource usage);
• Monitor and optimize maintenance and calibration requirements;
• Supply Chain collaboration for product design, quality and scheduling; and
• Manufacturing execution and execution systems networked to machines, test and measurement devices, robotics and process planning.

Engineers in the future will be more integrated as teams and will be using software that is more integrated with other processes and functions and with other engineers that are supporting the design to include internal and external engineers. 

Integrated Product and Process Teams (IPPTs) have been around for a long time and for a long time they have been poorly applied. In many cases companies and organizations claim to have an IPPT but in reality it is just the same old team they had last year with no improvements.  True IPPTs have the following characteristics:

• Teamwork:  The team is balanced by design, there has been some "team training on how to become a team," all members share an identity with the team, there is strong interaction among team members.
• Technologies:  There is a strong use of tools and technologies and the technologies are appropriate to that firm or organization.  Do not expect a small firm to use high end software systems, but expect them to at least "flowchart their processes."  Many teams do not use proven tools such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to identify customer requirements, and Design of Experiments (DOE) to identify key characteristics.
• Communications:  True IPPTs communicate with each other. They do not necessarily follow the "chain of command or company organization chart."  But everybody shares, everybody listens, and everybody understands each other.  The closest thing to perfection is what is shown in science fiction as the "Vulcan mind meld."
• Strong Project Focus:  Everyone understands the elements and makeup of the project to include the work breakdown structure, the cost and schedule components, the critical path, the goals and objectives and understands their role in the process to achieving the project.
• Creativity:  Creativity is fostered, especially in the early stages as the approach is developed and trade studies are accomplished.  New ideas flourish and are rewarded.  Imagine the CEO is Burt Rutan, Steve Jobs or Robin Williams.

Engineers of tomorrow will use advanced modeling and simulation tools and these tools will be integrated with other engineers and functions within the organization.  Thus the design engineer will be able to communicate directly with manufacturing engineering, quality engineering, and other functions on design options.  In addition, these engineers will be able to collaborate with other engineers up and down their supply chain.  Thus a mid-tier contractor working on a project will be able to collaborate with engineers on the prime contract above them and with engineers working for suppliers and vendors below them.

The world is shrinking.  In 1873, Jules Verne published the science fiction novel Around the World in Eighty Days. In the novel, Phileas Fogg takes a bet that he cannot circle the globe in 80 days. Of course he wins the bet and made the world just a bit smaller.  In 1937, Howard Hughes and a four-man crew circled the globe in just 3 days, 9 hours and 17 minutes. Today astronauts routinely circle the globe in 90 minutes. Our world is shrinking and borders are becoming invisible. Today people travel through most of Europe without going through border stops.  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created a trilateral trading bloc made up of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Meanwhile economic and environmental pressures have driven much of our manufacturing capability overseas.  This includes the production of many technologies that were developed here (microelectronics for example).  The new model is to design and invent here in the U.S. and then outsource the production overseas.  This approach on one hand provides many competitive advantages.  For example, many microelectronic devices are tested in Ireland due to the greatly reduced tax structure Ireland enjoys vs. the corporate tax in the U.S.  And shipping to Ireland from the east coast is no more expensive than shipping to the west coast.  The real disadvantage to this approach is the loss of well paying jobs for Americans and the taxes that would bring in, and the need to rely on another country for goods and services.  This is especially troubling if these goods and services are needed to support our national interest.

The industrial revolution became a time in which man tried to tame or at least control nature.  On many levels we were successful.  We were able improve our standard of living, and improve health and safety.  We developed transportation systems that allowed us to travel and move goods and services with easy.  We improved access to safe and clean drinking water and water for irrigation.  We improved sanitation systems which dramatically impacted our quality of life and health.  But these successes led to unintentionally consequences, namely a very large population explosion. And this led to massive consumption of resources, especially our natural resources, much of which is non-renewable.  Future engineers need to look at the impact of their design decisions on the natural environment and embrace approaches that foster sustainable designs and sustainable manufacturing practices.

Sustainable design is a design philosophy that values natural resources as a major factor in creating new products and seeks to reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts though thoughtful consideration of environmental factors.  This is also referred to as environmental design, environmentally sustainable design, environmentally-conscious design, design for the environment (DfE), Design for Sustainability (DfS), etc.  Sustainable design principles focus on the following:

• Use low-environmental impact materials (non-toxic, sustainably produced or recycled materials);
• Use energy efficient manufacturing processes and produce products which require less energy;
• Advance the state of quality, reliability and durability: longer-lasting products will have to be replaced less frequently;
• Design for reuse and recycling;
• Assess the total carbon footprint of the design to include impacts to production, operation and disposal costs;
• Develop Sustainable Design Standards to assist engineers and product managers;
• Turn to nature and use biomimicry: "redesigning industrial systems on biological lines;
• Renewability: materials should come from nearby (local or bioregional), sustainably managed renewable sources that can be composted when their usefulness has been exhausted.

Sustainable manufacturing can be defined as "manufacturing products with economically sound processes while avoiding negative impacts to the environment, on energy and natural resource use, and with regard for the safety of the warfighter, user, employees, and community."

On 24 June 2011, President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), a national effort bringing together industry, universities, and the federal government to invest in ways to create high quality manufacturing jobs and enhance our global competitiveness. Investing in people and skills is one of the foundations for investing in manufacturing. While America is the world's technology leader the supply of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education has not kept up with increasing demand. This trend threatens America's future economic security and our ability to provide warfighters with the breakthrough technologies and products that will give them their edge.  But the challenges ahead for this workforce are daunting:

• Jobs requiring math are increasing four times faster than overall job growth (Program for International Student Assessment test, 2004).
• Only 33% of eighth graders are interested in STEM majors and careers and only 6% of high school seniors will get a bachelor's degree in a STEM field.
• Only 18% of high school seniors are rated as science proficient and 33% as math proficient (Digest of Education Statistics, 2009). 
• 30% of high school mathematics students and 60% of high school physical sciences students have a teacher who did not major in that subject or is not certified to teach it (National Center for Education Statistics).
• The U.S. is ranked 27th (out of 29) for the rate of STEM bachelor's degrees awarded in developed countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009), 6% of undergraduates major in engineering in U.S. compared with 12% in Europe, 20% in Singapore, and 40% in China (Rising above the Gathering Storm).

A rebirth in manufacturing can only happen through a workforce with 21st Century learning and skills. Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) proficiency will be key when combined with strong oral and written communication, collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving, creativity, time management, and a strong work ethic. Government support (local, state, and national) is required if America is to once again become a dominant manufacturing powerhouse: This includes support for the following:

• Support schools working to implement STEM education using PBL techniques.
• Support business and industry involved in the implementation of STEM education using PBL.
• Ease laws and regulations regarding collective bargaining in education.
• Implement consistent course requirements.
• Provide needed funding.

Top of page