A Socratic Approach to Optimizing Aerospace Manufacturing Costs
International Journal of Systems Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 1, June 2020, Pages: 7-11
Received: Jun. 2, 2020; Accepted: Jun. 17, 2020; Published: Jul. 4, 2020
Views 99      Downloads 40
Author
Lisa Sivertson, Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Waltham, United States
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
In aerospace development and manufacturing environments, the cost of tests contributes a significant portion to the overall program costs. An extensive test program results in increased costs and unforeseen delays in fielding needed products and technologies. On average test represents approximately 30% of overall costs. The lack of a well thought out test strategy developed early and maintained through the entire program lifecycle results in high operational field failures, increased test equipment and unit production costs, delays in unit integration, redundant manufacturing tests, and poor transition into production as well as an increase in program risks. This paper describes the concept of an evolving program test strategy and the role of a Test Architect to achieve the goal of reducing test costs across the entire program lifecycle. Defining a test strategy results in clearly structured test plan and architecture, optimized test event planning and comprehensive test artifacts early in the program lifecycle. As a Subject Matter Expert, the Test Architect sets and drives the test strategy ensuring an overall test program is optimized and aligned across three phases of development: User Operations, Development and Production. To achieve a robust test strategy, the Test Architect uses a Socratic approach to question why a test needs to be performed, increasing the likelihood of executing a successful development test program, facilitating a seamless transition into production and optimizing the support of the deployed product.
Keywords
Strategy, Test, Manufacturing, Architecture, Aerospace
To cite this article
Lisa Sivertson, A Socratic Approach to Optimizing Aerospace Manufacturing Costs, International Journal of Systems Engineering. Vol. 4, No. 1, 2020, pp. 7-11. doi: 10.11648/j.ijse.20200401.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
H. Lam. (2004, July). New design-to-test software strategies accelerate time-to-market. In Electronics Manufacturing Technology Symposium, 2004. IEEE/CPMT/SEMI 29th International (pp. 140-143). IEEE.
[2]
J. Turino. (2012). Design to test: a definitive guide for electronic design, manufacture, and service. Springer Science & Business Media.
[3]
Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Major Weapon Programs. GAO-07-406. Washington, DC.: March 2007
[4]
R. Mahoney. “Integrating Manufacturing Test Strategy with Manufacturing Production Strategy.” 1997 IEEE Autotestcon Proceedings AUTOTESTCON '97. IEEE Systems Readiness Technology Conference. Systems Readiness Supporting Global Needs and Awareness in the 21st Century, 1997, doi: 10.1109/autest.1997.633651.
[5]
N. Singh. “The Socratic Process / Guided Discovery.” Handbook of Evidence-Based Practices in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Springer, 2018, p. 291.
[6]
Manas, J. and Guise, L., "Systems engineering for test: Implementation of test strategy & architecture at raytheon missile systems," 2013 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Orlando, FL, 2013, pp. 305-311, doi: 10.1109/SysCon.2013.6549898.
[7]
J. Smith and D. Lowenstein. “Built in Test - Coverage and Diagnostics.” 2009 IEEE Autotestcon, 2009, doi: 10.1109/autest.2009.5314056.
[8]
M. J. Ward, et al. “A Readiness Level Approach to Manufacturing Technology Development in the Aerospace Sector: an Industrial Approach.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol. 226, no. 3, 2011, pp. 547–552., doi: 10.1177/0954405411418753.
[9]
R Marshall, et al. “Enhanced Product Realisation through Modular Design: an Example of Product/Process Integration.” Figshare, Loughborough University, 7 Aug. 2019, repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Enhanced_product_realisation_through_modular_design_an_example_of_product_process_integration/9340238.
[10]
Nair, C. “Modular Test Architectures for the Aerospace Industry.” Proceedings, IEEE AUTOTESTCON, 2002, doi: 10.1109/autest.2002.1047895.
[11]
N. James. “Concept of operations and the DoD architecture framework.’ Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2018.
[12]
G. Kasouf and D. Weiss, "An Integrated Missile Reliability Growth Program," Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1984. Proceedings., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1984, pp. 465-470, doi: 10.1109/RAMS.1984.764336.
[13]
P. Jaramillo, M. Rascon, C. Adams, and E. Jauregui. (2020). Fundamental Principles, Processes, and Roles of Environmental Qualification Test Strategy for Complex Engineered Systems. J Info Tech Soft Eng 10: 265. doi: 10.24105/2165-7866.10.265.
[14]
K. Brindley. “Test Strategies.” Automatic Test Equipment. Newnes, 1991, p. 38.
[15]
R. Drees and N. Young. (2004). Role of BIT in support system maintenance and availability. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 19 (8), 3-7.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186