for the benefit of Large Infrastructure Projects Alan Knott - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Applying Systems Engineering Practices for the benefit of Large Infrastructure Projects

Alan Knott Technical Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff Member INCOSE Infrastructure Working Group

Objective and Agenda

Can Systems Engineering Practices help Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs) become more successful?  Background – me, my company and the professional society I represent  Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering in Large Infrastructure Projects  Case Studies- UK NATS, Heathrow T5, East London Line

Parsons Brinckerhoff – A Global Leader in Infrastructure Engineering Professional Services

PB in country projects PB offices PB Major Presence

Infrastructure Engineering Consultancy

Systems Engineering Solutions to Complex Problems

Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems. It focuses on defining customer needs and required functionality early in the development cycle, documenting requirements, and then proceeding with design synthesis and system validation while considering the complete problem: operations, performance, test, manufacturing, cost & schedule, training & support, and disposal. Systems Engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation. Systems Engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user needs.

Recognising the Need Major Projects Association

With advances in technology, major projects have become hugely complex. Great engineers

• f the past like Stephenson and Brunel could conduct an entire project with a manageable

“headfull” of information. This is no longer possible: modern projects are made up of a network of interoperating systems with a multiplicity of functions, technology and commercial imperatives. The complexities of interfaces and tradeoffs have to be carefully managed, together with risk, over the project’s entire life cycle. Disciplined Systems Integration techniques provide the key to managing complexity across a broad range of industries and offer additional benefits when implementing organizational systems and process changes in today’s multi-owner, multi-stakeholder environment.

Text taken from an MPA Meeting at the Royal college of Pathologists in London May 2002.

Recognising the Need The Royal Academy of Engineering 2007

Recognising the Need The Royal Academy of Engineering 2007

Six principles for integrated system design The parts have to be integrated into the whole – we use the term “Integrated System Design” to emphasise that this is more than just conceiving and building a part. Integrated system design encompasses a wide range of disciplines, skills and

• ideas. We have grouped them as six principles. These are not just theory; they have been pragmatically derived by

experienced engineers with a long history of successful (and some unsuccessful) system projects. The six principles provide a pervasive framework for understanding the challenges of a system design problem and for educating engineers to rise to those challenges: 1. Debate, define, revise and pursue the purpose 2. Think holistic 3. Follow a systematic procedure 4. Be creative 5. Take account of the people 6. Manage the project and the relationships. Three levels of complexity Level 1: A sub-system, substantially within one engineering discipline and one organisation. Examples include a PC motherboard, a car gearbox, a sand filter for water treatment, air conditioning, the antenna for an aircraft radio and a secure encryption terminal. Level 2: A system that involves two or more engineering disciplines and/or requires two or more organisations to design, build,

• perate or maintain it. Examples include an electricity power station, railway signalling, a car, a waste water treatment plant,

a hotel and a fighter aircraft. Level 3: A system of systems that impacts, or is impacted by, many disciplines and economic, social or environmental factors. Examples include the national rail and roads network, the NHS, military command and control, the telephone network and electricity supply.

Extracted from ‘Creating systems that work: A publication of the Royal Academy of Engineering 2007.

Business Case for SE Investment

Project Cost Project Time

International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)

The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) is a not- for-profit membership organization founded to advance the art and practice of systems engineering by helping individuals and enterprises turn complexity into competitive advantage. The Council is committed to shaping a future where systems approaches are preferred and valued in solving problems, whether providing solutions for product development or enabling holistic solutions to global challenges. www.incose.org

INCOSE Overview

• Started in August 1990 by 35 senior technical managers
• Incorporated as nonprofit technical society in January 1992
• Charter expanded to International status in 1995
• 8,000+ members, Regional Chapters
• Networking – International Symposia, Workshops, Interest Groups,

Local Groups

• Products – Handbook, Body of Knowledge, Competency Framework
• Technical Operations – Infrastructure, Transportation, In-Service

Systems Working Groups

• Memoranda of Understanding with other Professional Bodies e.g.

PMI & IET

INCOSE Infrastructure Working Group

Chair: Alain Kouassi Co-Chairs: Mike deLamare; Neil Snyder Formed: 2006 INCOSE Connect address:

https://connect.incose.org/tb/infra

INCOSE Web page:

http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivities/wg/infra

Number of Members: 50+ (10-12 active)

The Infrastructure WG Charter is to bring together designers, builders and operators of economic and physical infrastructure systems to advance the application of Systems Engineering.

INCOSE IWG Guide

Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering in Large Infrastructure Projects

Developed by the INCOSE Infrastructure Working Group Status Draft Version 3.0, 30 March 2012

Infrastructure Working Group (IWG) members involved in the production & review of the Guide from:

• Australia
• USA
• UK
• The Netherlands
• Singapore
• Taiwan

INCOSE IWG Guide

1 INTRODUCTION (1) 2 THE CASE FOR APPLYING SE PRACTICES TO LIPS (3) 3 THE SYSTEMS VIEW OF A LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (5) 4 APPLYING SE PRACTICES TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS (8) 5 SUMMARY (2) APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (2) APPENDIX B – ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (5) APPENDIX C - ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL (16) APPENDIX D - NOTES AND REFERENCES (4) APPENDIX E - FEEDBACK FORM (1)

The purpose of this Guide is to reposition traditional SE practices, as it has been successfully developed and applied in the defense, aerospace, manufacturing and telecommunications industries, into the context of the construction industry and thereby provide professionals engaged on LIPs a convenient and comprehensive access to the relevant parts of the system engineer‟s toolkit. The Guide is not an introduction to, or textbook on, SE and it is assumed that the user will have either some understanding of good engineering practices or take the time to access the references highlighted throughout the Guide.

Body of the IWG Guide

2 THE CASE FOR APPLYING SE PRACTICES TO LIPS 2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF A LIP 2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIPS AND SE PROJECTS 2.3 ADDRESSING COMPLEXITY 2.4 ADDRESSING UNIQUENESS 2.5 ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY 2.6 MOTIVATION 3 THE SYSTEMS VIEW OF A LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT 3.1 THE PRODUCT OF THE PROJECT 3.2 THE LIFECYCLE OF THE PROJECT 3.3 CONTROLLING THE PROJECT DYNAMICS 3.4 MEASURING SUCCESSFUL DELIVERY 3.5 CONSIDERING THE PROJECT AND POST–PROJECT CONDITIONS 4 APPLYING SE PRACTICES TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 4.1 PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OVERVIEW 4.2 PROCESS INPUTS - Contracting Strategy, Design Solution 4.3 PROCESS OUTPUTS Handover and Takeover of the System, Transition into Service 4.4 PROCESS CONTROLS AND ENABLERS- Risk Management, Managing Change / Configuration Control, Controlling the System Build Configuration, Process Verification and Validation, Regulatory Permits and Certification

LIP & SE Lifecycles

Stakeholder Requirements Procurement & Construction Design / Engineer Specifications Operation & Maintenance

Controlling the Project Dynamics

quality

project

The Project Management Triangle

Related Breakdown Structures

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Start Mobilise Planning Requirements Establish Office IT Systems Furniture Project Director Project Manager Engineering Manager Construction Manager Quality Manager Safety Manager

Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS)

Level 3 - Sub-System Level 2 - System Entities Level 1 - System

Railway Infra- structure Track Stations Trains Engine

System Breakdown Structure (SBS)

Project Configuration Baseline

Measuring Successful Delivery

Assets that haven‟t changed All New Assets and Assets that have changed

Current System Build Configuration Required System Build Configuration (RSBC)

Large Infrastructure Project

Intermediate System Build Configurations

INCOSE IWG Guide Using a Description of a SE Process

Process Inputs Outputs Controls Enablers

Design Solution Assets Configuration Management Risk Management

INCOSE IWG Guide Summary

LIPs are characterised by their:

• Large Scale
• Long Duration
• Uniqueness
• Complexity
• Cost Uncertainty
• Significant Proportion of Time & Cost in Construction Stage

Relating the System, Work & Organisation Breakdown Structures creates a Framework that helps all Stakeholders to Manage the Variables (Risks and Opportunities) and to Maintain Control and Balance of the Build Configuration through all Stages of the Lifecycle. Applying System Engineering Practices to LIPs can be the Difference between Success & Failure.

SE Value Proposition Case Studies

• 1. West Coast Route Modernisation Project in the UK
• 2. SkyTrain control center upgrade and expansion in Vancouver, Canada
• 3. Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre in the UK
• 4. Docklands Light Railway Expansion in the UK
• 5. NETLIPSE, a European research project studying large infrastructure

projects

Systems Engineering in Transportation Projects A Library of Case Studies

Extracted from „Systems Engineering in Transportation Projects A Library of Case Studies‟ November 2011 by the INCOSE Transportation Working Group

Case Study Rationalising Air Traffic Control in UK

Major Challenges were:

• A challenging and immutable deadline, driven by public commitments

made by NATS;

• The need to achieve safety acceptance of the new system by the

CAA, the UK regulator;

• Significant personnel issues arising from the need to relocate staff;
• Changes in scope during the project, for example, the incorporation
• f Oceanic control, which had been scheduled for a later

implementation; and

• Uncertainties in costs, for example, the unexpected rise in the cost of

some materials and labour. Reducing Air Traffic Control in UK from 4 to 2 Centres Swanwick and Prestwick

Extracted from „Systems Engineering in Transportation Projects A Library of Case Studies‟ November 2011 by the INCOSE Transportation Working Group

SE Practices Employed (ISO15288 as checklist):

• Stakeholder Requirements Captured at Outset
• Technical Toolset Used for Requirements, Documentation, Modelling & Simulation
• Logical Model Built of Solution
• Thorough Testing of all Operational Scenarios
• Focus on Effective Risk and Configuration Management

Accounting for Human Factors for example:

• The High Level System Design Document was deliberately kept to within one

hundred pages so that it would not only be easy to manage, but also so that it would be read and understood by all team members;

• Simple and regular communication channels between project leaders and team

members were put in place;

• Regular meetings with senior management ensured that key decision makers were

fully informed and involved throughout the project and could provide assistance where and when necessary; and

• Engineering management provided genuine leadership and ensured that all project

decisions were fully informed by engineering considerations.

Extracted from „Systems Engineering in Transportation Projects A Library of Case Studies‟ November 2011 by the INCOSE Transportation Working Group

Case Study Rationalising Air Traffic Control in UK

Outcomes The project was implemented on time and £9M under budget. The new Prestwick Control Centre became fully operational without any interruption to air traffic control. A senior airline manager rang NATS to inquire when the switchover was due to occur only to be told that it had happened the previous week! It had been planned to incorporate Oceanic control into the Centre after it had gone live but the project‟s progress allowed this to be brought forward so that Oceanic control could be provided from the start. NATS is now leading the way in Europe‟s agreed strategy of concentrating ATC in a small number of large centres.

Extracted from „Systems Engineering in Transportation Projects A Library of Case Studies‟ November 2011 by the INCOSE Transportation Working Group

Case Study Rationalising Air Traffic Control in UK

Case Study Heathrow Terminal 5 Rail Link

Extracted from an INCOSE UK Spring Conference 2009 Presentation ‘Terminal 5 Rail Projects: An Untold Success Story’ by Paul Cooper & Phil Bartholomew, Mott MacDonald

Case study Heathrow Terminal 5 Rail Link

Extracted from an INCOSE UK Spring Conference 2009 Presentation ‘Terminal 5 Rail Projects: An Untold Success Story’ by Paul Cooper & Phil Bartholomew, Mott MacDonald

The purpose of this presentation is to summarise how systems engineering contributed to the successful delivery of the T5 rail projects. It explains how a Systems Engineering and Assurance team was formed at the outset and was proactively involved until handover of the railways to the operators. The team‟s objectives were to ensure compliance with requirements and standards, problem-free integration of the many workstreams and subsystems, and the smooth commissioning of the railways through a systems engineering approach that included Human Factors, EMC, RAM and System Safety. The T5 rail extensions presented a unique challenge, involving the creation of four new tunnel bores under the operating airport, and the fitout of the two railways and the station. The project involved the full range of rail disciplines, from heavy civils through to complex control systems, and integration with two live railways.

Heathrow Terminal 5 Rail Link SE Practices

Extracted from an INCOSE UK Spring Conference 2009 Presentation ‘Terminal 5 Rail Projects: An Untold Success Story’ by Paul Cooper & Phil Bartholomew, Mott MacDonald

Extracted from an INCOSE UK Spring Conference 2009 Presentation ‘Terminal 5 Rail Projects: An Untold Success Story’ by Paul Cooper & Phil Bartholomew, Mott MacDonald

Heathrow Terminal 5 Rail Link Outcome

System Engineering principles applied comprising:

• Lifecycle Management
• Operational Concept
• Requirements Definition
• Modeling
• System Breakdown Structure (Leveling)
• Interface Definition and Management
• Configuration Management and Baselines
• Progressive Assurance

East London Line Project Engineering Approach

Extract from ‘Innovative Systems Engineering Practices that help manage the Organisational and Technical Complexity of a Modern Railway Project’ by Alan Knott & Mike Stubbs at Int’l

• Conf. on Railway Engineering (ICRE), Hong Kong, 25-27 March 2008.

Project Definition Operation & Maintenance

East London Line Project Lifecycle Integration

Inception Phase Feasibility Phase Development Phase Building Phase Close Out Phase

Investment Project Lifecycle

G1 G2 G3

Recommended Gates (Baselines)

G4

Conceptual Planning & Statement of Requirements Detailed Design Build / Implementation Unit Test Integration & Test System Proving - Factory Requirements Analysis & Front End Design Preliminary Functional Design Install, Commission & Final Proving Extract from ‘Innovative Systems Engineering Practices that help manage the Organisational and Technical Complexity of a Modern Railway Project’ by Alan Knott & Mike Stubbs at Int’l

• Conf. on Railway Engineering (ICRE), Hong Kong, 25-27 March 2008.

East London Line Project High Level Integrated Lifecycle

Development Remit Functional Specification Preliminary Design Detailed Design Operation & Maintenance Trial Operations Test Running Test & Commissioning Manufacture & Installation

Inception Feasibility Development Delivery Closeout

Extract from ‘Innovative Systems Engineering Practices that help manage the Organisational and Technical Complexity of a Modern Railway Project’ by Alan Knott & Mike Stubbs at Int’l

• Conf. on Railway Engineering (ICRE), Hong Kong, 25-27 March 2008.

East London Line Project System Breakdown (Levelling)

Level 2 (Element) World Not Railway Existing Railway East London Line Railway Operations Changing Railway Infrastructure Level 1 (System) Level 4 (Sub-System)

Level 3 (Package)

Trains

Passenger Rolling Stock Engineering Rolling Stock Enabling Works Main Works Network Rail Works London Underground Works Other Works

IDABS

Passenger Services Operation Network Operators Infrastructure Managers Rules & Procedures Agreements

Structures Cab Interior Saloon Power Supply Train Control & Protection Dynamics, Gauging & Movements Performance RAMS Acoustics Climate Materials & Environment Passenger Functionality

VBS

Telecomms Track Civils & Structures E &M Signalling Traction Power HV Power LV Power

Routewide Systems / Disciplines Locations

Dalston Jnt Shoreditch HS Whitechaple OBC NXG Facility New Cross Gate

Extract from ‘ ‘A Case for System Acceptance - Progressive Assurance Practices on the East London Line Project’ by Alan Knott & Barry Hodges at International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium 2008, Utrecht, Holland, 15-19 June 2008.

Objective and Agenda

Can Systems Engineering Practices help Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs) become more successful?  Background – me, my company and the professional society I represent  Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering in Large Infrastructure Projects  Case Studies- UK NATS, Heathrow T5, East London Line Most certainly they can!

Applying Systems Engineering Practices To Large Infrastructure Projects

Contact Details

Alan Knott, Technical Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff

knott@pbworld.com, +44 (0) 161 200 5151 www.pbworld.com/ea

Some Additional Slides That May Be Of Interest

Material from the IWG Appendices

• IWG Guide Table of Contents
• Organisations Associated with Construction
• Comparison of NETLIPSE Research Project Lessons

Learned with SE Standard ISO 15288

• Selected References for Further Reading
• INCOSE Organisation & Relationship with PMI
• Systems Integration on Network Rail Thameslink &

Northern Hub Projects –

IWG Guide Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 2 THE CASE FOR APPLYING SE PRACTICES TO LIPS 2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF A LIP 2.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIPS AND SE PROJECTS 2.3 ADDRESSING COMPLEXITY 2.4 ADDRESSING UNIQUENESS 2.5 ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY 2.6 MOTIVATION 3 THE SYSTEMS VIEW OF A LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT 3.1 THE PRODUCT OF THE PROJECT 3.2 THE LIFECYCLE OF THE PROJECT 3.3 CONTROLLING THE PROJECT DYNAMICS 3.4 MEASURING SUCCESSFUL DELIVERY 3.5 CONSIDERING THE PROJECT AND POST –PROJECT CONDITIONS 3.5.1 The Project Environment 3.5.2 The Post-Project Environment 4 APPLYING SE PRACTICES TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 4.1 PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OVERVIEW 4.2 PROCESS INPUTS 4.2.1 Contracting Strategy 4.2.2 Design Solution 4.3 PROCESS OUTPUTS 4.3.1 Handover and Takeover of the System 4.3.2 Transition into Service 4.4 PROCESS CONTROLS AND ENABLERS 4.4.1 Risk Management 4.4.2 Managing Change / Configuration Control 4.4.3 Controlling the System Build Configuration 4.4.4 Process Verification and Validation 4.4.5 Regulatory Permits and Certification 5 SUMMARY APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A1 DEFINITIONS A2 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS APPENDIX B – ORGANIZATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS B1 INCOSE AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE WORKING GROUP B2 NETLIPSE B3 ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS APPENDIX C - ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL C1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS C1.1 A Brief Introduction to Systems Engineering C1.2 Complexity as the Common Factor C1.3 Cost-Effectiveness as the Common Driver C1.4 The Relationship between Systems Engineering, Project Management and Asset Management C2 UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS C2.1 As a Complex Product C2.2 As the Outcome of a Set of Processes C2.3 As a Process in Response to a Complex Set of Requirements C2.4 As a Process Taking Place in a Special Physical Environment C3 DEVELOPING A PROCUREMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY C3.1 Overview C3.2 A System Approach to Developing the Strategy C3.3 Creating A Packaging Model C3.4 Subcontracting Strategy and the Allocation and Control of Risk C3.4.1 Overview C3.4.2 Processes and Activities C3.5 DEFINING AND ALLOCATING THE HAND-OVER RESPONSIBILITIES APPENDIX D - NOTES AND REFERENCES APPENDIX E - FEEDBACK FORM

SE Standards Evolution

Extracted from Baltimore PMI Chapter Presentation by Nick Clemens, Engineering Management & Integration Inc (EMI), ‘Systems Engineering (SE) and Project Management’ July 2004

ISO/IEC 15288 SE PROCESSES

INCOSE IWG Guide Lessons Learned from NETLIPSE

NETLIPSE BOOK ISO 15288: 2008 Sec. Category Title / Description Clause Title / Description 6.2 Objectives and Scope 5 Related, 1 Partially Related, 1 Not Related 6.2.1 Define the objectives in interaction with the stakeholders 6.4.1.3 a.2) Elicit stakeholder requirements. 6.2.2 Formulate a vision 6.2.3 Translate objectives into scope, work packages and milestones 6.3.1 Project Planning Process 6.2.4 Assess and authorize scope changes 6.3.2.3 b.1) Manage project requirements and changes to requirements in accordance with the project plans. 6.2.5 Use configuration management to assess the impact of scope changes 6.3.5 Configuration Management Process 6.2.6 Implement a variation procedure 6.3.2.3 b.6) Initiate change actions when there is a contractual change to cost, time, or quality due to the impact of an acquirer or supplier request. 6.2.7 Organize adequate expertise to be able to deal with scope changes 6.3.1.3 b.4) Establish the structure of authorities and responsibilities for project work. 6.3 Stakeholders 2 Related, 2 Partially Related, 3 Not Related 6.4 Financial Management 2 Related, 1 Partially Related, 0 Not Related 6.5 Organization and Management 5 Related, 1 Partially Related, 1 Not Related 6.6

Risk (and opportunities)

4 Related, 0 Partially Related, 3 Not Related 6.7

Contracting

3 Related, 0 Partially Related, 3 Not Related 6.8

Legal Consents

0 Related, 0 Partially Related, 5 Not Related 6.9

Knowledge and Technology

0 Related, 1 Partially Related, 3 Not Related

Other

0 Related, 0 Partially Related, 3 Not Related

From INCOSE IWG „Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering Practices in Large Infrastructure Projects‟ showing detail from one Section (blue background indicates only partial relationship and blank no related clause) and summaries (red text) for other Sections. The NETLIPSE reference is Managing Large Infrastructure Projects, published by A.T. Osborne BV, 2008

From INCOSE IWG „Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering Practices in Large Infrastructure Projects‟ showing detail from one Section (blue background indicates only partial relationship and blank no related clause) and summaries (red text) for other Sections. The NETLIPSE reference is Managing Large Infrastructure Projects, published by A.T. Osborne BV, 2008

INCOSE IWG Guide Lessons Learned from NETLIPSE

The outcome of this analysis illustrates some of the issues that are under discussion in the IWG and addressed in the Guide:

• ISO 15288 assumes that projects are carried out within an enterprise; in these LIPs

each project is an enterprise. That is, many of the enterprise processes become project processes.

• The study highlights the importance of the contracting strategy and its influence on

almost all the other processes in the project; this is completely missing from ISO 15288.

• The study and the findings focus on cost and schedule issues (risks) arising from

causes within the environment (political, economic. societal) of the project; this important aspect is only indirectly (and vaguely) addressed in ISO 15288.

• The legal aspects, and their influence on the project in the form of obtaining

consents, are highlighted in the study, but are ignored in ISO 15288.

• The study also emphasizes the importance of developing and managing

knowledge within the project; again, this is not addressed by ISO 15288.

INCOSE IWG Guide Organisations Associated with Construction

Australia: The Australian Institute of Building, www.aib.org.au Australian Building Coded Board, www.abcb.gov.au Canada: Canadian Construction Association (CCA) www.cca-acc.com Construction Specifications Canada (CSC) www.csc-dcc.ca UK: Construction Industry Research and Information Association, www.ciria.org Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). www.ice.org.uk USA: The Construction Specifications Institute, www.csinet.org Construction Industry Institute, www.construction-institute.org National Institute of Building Sciences, www.nibs.org American Underground-Construction Association, www.auca.org American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). www.asce.org Netherlands: NLengineers is the Dutch association of consulting engineers ('NLingenieurs' in Dutch). www.onri.nl/english International: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, www.cibworld.nl/site/home/index.html

From INCOSE IWG „Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering Practices in Large Infrastructure Projects‟

INCOSE IWG Guide Selected Reference Material

• Hillebrandt, P.M., Economic Theory and Construction Industry, Macmillan, 2000, states that

construction makes up 10 % of GDP world wide and, for example, is the largest industry in the United Kingdom and the second largest, after public health, in Sweden.

• ASCE Guiding Principles for Critical Infrastructure.pdf, dated 2009
• Eisner, H., Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering Management, New York, John Wiley &

Sons, 1997

• Systems Engineering Handbook – A Guide for System Lifecycle Processes and Activities, v. 3.2,

INCOSE-TP-2003-002-03.2, C. Haskins (Ed.), January 2010.

• ISO 15288:2008, Systems and software engineering – System lifecycle processes.
• Leidraad voor Systems Engineering binnen de GWW-sector, (in Dutch), produced by

Rijkswaterstaat and ProRail, 2008. An English version of Issue1 was distributed at the INCOSE Int‟l Symposium 2008 in Utrecht. Issue 2 is currently only available in Dutch at www.leidraadse.nl

• Knott, A., Applying Configuration Management Principles on a Large Scale Operational Railway

Infrastructure, Railway Engineering 2004 Conference, 6-7 July 2004, Commonwealth Institute, London.

• Knott, A. and Stubbs, M, Innovative Systems Engineering Practices that help manage the

Organisational and Technical Complexity of a Modern Railway Project, Int‟l Conf. on Railway Engineering (ICRE), Hong Kong, 25-27 March 2008.

• Knott, A. and Hodges, B, A Case for System Acceptance - Progressive Assurance Practices on

the East London Line Project, International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium 2008, Utrecht, Holland, 15-19 June 2008.

From INCOSE IWG „Guide for the Application of Systems Engineering Practices in Large Infrastructure Projects‟

INCOSE Overview and Structure

• Started in August 1990 by 35 senior technical managers
• Incorporated as nonprofit technical society in January 1992
• Charter expanded to International status in 1995
• Organization Leadership
• Board of Directors
• Corporate Advisory Board
• Member Board
• Technical Operations, Working Groups and Initiatives
• Administrative Committees
• Administrative Office (Managing Executive)

INCOSE Goals

• To provide a focal point for the dissemination of systems

engineering knowledge

• To promote international collaboration in systems engineering

practice, education, and research

• To assure the establishment of competitive, scalable professional

standards in the practice of systems

• To improve the professional status of all persons engaged in the

practice of systems engineering

• To encourage governmental and industrial support for research and

educational programs that will improve the systems engineering process and its practice

INCOSE Chapters Around the World

Chapters Startups

Technical Operations Activities

Working Groups

Processes Enabler

• Affordability
• Cost Engineering
• Human Systems Integration
• In-Service Systems
• Lean Systems Engineering
• Life Cycle Management
• Measurement
• Requirements
• Risk Management
• Reliability Engineering
• System Safety Integration
• Systems Security Engineering
• Verification & Validation

Knowledge Enabler

• Architecture
• Competency
• Complex Systems
• Decision Analysis
• Intelligent Enterprises
• Knowledge Management
• Process Improvement
• Systems Science
• Resilient Systems
• SE Effectiveness
• Training

Technology Enabler

• Autonomous System

Test & Validation

• Tools Database
• Tools Integration &

Interoperability

Industry Domain

• Biomedical
• Infrastructure
• Net-centric Operations
• System Engineering in Very Small & Medium Entreprises

Government Domain

• Anti-terrorism International
• Defense Systems
• Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)
• Power and Energy Systems
• Space Systems
• Transportation

Academia Liaison

• Motor Sports

Technical Operations Activities

Working Groups

INCOSE & PMI – A Strategic Alliance

Program managers and systems engineers each play leadership roles in the design and implementation of key organizational initiatives. These can include rebuilding infrastructure, creating improvements to healthcare delivery, managing equipment acquisition for national defense, delivering competitive new products and properly allocating resources. At times, however, these professionals apply different approaches to initiatives based their own distinct practices, which can delay success. In order to help organizations overcome the resultant inefficiencies, the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) – two leading professional membership organizations – have announced a strategic alliance that will enhance

• verall program success through the improved integration of practices between their professional
• communities. PMI and INCOSE will work together to provide members with tools to maximize the

shared skills and experiences that are essential for successful program execution in this fast paced and continuously changing world. The associations will solidify initiatives that support stronger integration between the two professions, starting with developing case studies on successful collaborative projects and furthering dialogue with their stakeholder communities. PMI and INCOSE‟s first joint initiative produced a white paper, “Toward a New Mindset: Bridging the Gap between Program Management and Systems Engineering,” which details the need for better professional integration.

Extract from INCOSE Press Release, Sept 2011

PMI Documents

Extracted from Baltimore PMI Chapter Presentation by Nick Clemens, Engineering Management & Integration Inc (EMI), ‘Systems Engineering (SE) and Project Management’ July 2004

Systems Integration on the Northern Hub

Taken from INCOSE UK RIG Presentation ‘Managing Complexity in the North West and Integrating the Northern Hub’ by Steve Turner, Parsons Brinckerhoff on 23rd February 2012

Thameslink & Northern Hub Systems Integration

Taken from INCOSE UK RIG Presentation ‘Managing Complexity in the North West and Integrating the Northern Hub’ by Steve Turner, Parsons Brinckerhoff on 23rd February 2012