Addressing Common Obstacles to Digital Engineering

Report

Addressing Common Obstacles to Digital Engineering

How defense organizations can build a strong practice

Digital engineering holds great promise for defense organizations鈥攊f they can implement the discipline. But for some organizations, that has been an elusive goal.

While digital engineering tools are getting better than ever, many engineers are reluctant to use them, still preferring more conventional system engineering approaches. Others use the tools, but in inconsistent and inefficient ways. These problems are making it difficult for defense organizations to get the breakthrough benefits of digital engineering鈥攊ncluding a much greater ability to keep pace with rapid changes in missions, user requirements, and emerging technologies.

It doesn鈥檛 have to be this way. By adopting clear and consistent digital engineering strategies, defense organizations can encourage systems engineers and others to use digital tools, and use them in the right ways. Such strategies鈥攑articularly those governing clear use cases, tools usage strategy, and common lexicons and taxonomies鈥攚ill help organizations get the full value of digital engineering.

The Problem of Parallel Teams

As defense organizations have moved to digital engineering, many have found themselves saddled with an unexpected obstacle. Instead of a single team of engineers collaborating on the digital model, two parallel groups have sprung up, each working on the model in different ways.

System Engineers: Resistance to Digital Tools

Typically, one group consists of system engineers who aren鈥檛 comfortable with the tools used to build digital models, such as those without formal systems engineering training. In the early stages of digital engineering, the tools were often cumbersome, confusing, hard to learn, and hard to use.聽

Many system engineers, though they saw the theoretical value of digital engineering, were daunted by the tools, questioning whether they were truly practical. They found that it often took just as long鈥攊f not longer鈥攖o develop systems digitally as it did using the older paper-based methods.

System Architects: Personal Preference Dictates Process

The other group in the parallel setup consists largely of system architects, along with some system and software engineers who are more comfortable with the unified modeling language (UML)-based tools. System architects have generally made the transition to digital engineering more easily, as many of the digital tools evolved from system architecture tools which they were already using.

However, there is often little consistency in how the system architects actually use the tools. Processes may be dictated by personal preferences rather than rigorous methodology. For example, different architects may work on the same digital model with different tools, and in different ways.

Inefficient Together: Manual Digital Engineering Workflow

The system architects and system engineers work together to create and modify digital models鈥攂ut in an inefficient way. Typically, the system architects go to the system engineers, get their input manually, and then enter it into the tools. This parallel-team approach is usually an ongoing, iterative process, and the back-and-forth takes so long that the time savings of digital engineering often is almost entirely lost.

At the same time, since there鈥檚 no standard approach to using the tools, the models may be replete with inconsistencies and even errors that can take time to discover and sort out. Such flawed models often make system engineers even more distrustful of the tools鈥攁nd the digital process in general鈥攆urther entrenching the model of parallel teams.

Removing the Obstacles

In recent years, digital engineering has been moving past what might be thought of as its awkward stage. Today鈥檚 digital tools are far more user-friendly, intuitive, and efficient than in the past. At the same time, cloud-based approaches are making it much easier to integrate formerly siloed digital models and environments.聽

This enables system engineers, system architects, and others to seamlessly share their work. Despite these improvements, however, many defense organizations still find themselves mired in parallel teams and the inconsistent use of tools.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this morass. By being strategic about why and how they want to use digital engineering, chief engineers and program managers can bring their disparate teams together, with everyone working with the same tools and toward a common purpose. Effective digital engineering strategies include:

Mature Use Case Strategy

One of the chief reasons many system engineers balk at using digital tools鈥攁nd why many system architects use them inconsistently鈥攊s that no one is quite clear about how the digital models will be used. For example, if system engineers aren鈥檛 sure what data needs to be captured and what doesn鈥檛, they don鈥檛 know how to use the tools. And if system architects don鈥檛 have consensus about what the digital model should look like, they鈥檙e likely to go about building it in haphazard ways.

One of the first steps is to gain clarity about how the digital models will support the specific goals of the organization and the mission. Organizations then need to ask questions, such as, What information should be captured to achieve those goals? How should it be analyzed? How should the information in digital models be used to inform decision making?

Mature Tool Strategy

As digital engineering has grown, so has the variety and number of tools. With so many options, many system architects and engineers have found it difficult to make sure they鈥檙e using the right tools in the right ways.聽

For example, it鈥檚 not uncommon for organizations to use tools that aren鈥檛 compatible with one another鈥攚hich often requires time-consuming manual data exchanges between tools. Or, organizations may use tools that are too complicated or data-intensive for the job, making things even more daunting for the system engineers.聽

With a mature tool strategy, organizations can make sure they鈥檙e using digital tools appropriately and consistently, and in the best ways for system architects and engineers alike.

Consistent Lexicons and Taxonomies

Another common problem is an inconsistent approach to information used by the model. Different system architects, for example, may vary the order that data is presented, or use different lexicons and taxonomies for the same information.聽

This can cause confusion, errors, and the need for time-consuming rework, such as when the same information is inadvertently captured twice鈥攊n two different ways鈥攐r when some measurements in a model are presented in metric and others in imperial, so it鈥檚 unclear whether the numbers are in centimeters or inches. Consistent lexicons and taxonomies keep everyone on the same (digital) page.

With strategies such as these, defense organizations can begin to break down the parallel-team paradigm and make sure that system engineers and architects alike are developing digital models in the most consistent and efficient ways. This clears the way for the defense community to get the full power and potential of digital engineering.

Learn more about our digital engineering capabilities.

Our Capabilities

Article

1 - 4 of 8

无忧传媒