Module J

Trade Study Process

CC04264140.ppt
Mod J

Trade Study Objectives

Support the decision needs of the system
engineering process
Evaluate alternatives (requirements, functions,
configurations)
Integrate and balance all considerations (cost,
performance, producibility, testibiity,compatibility,
supportability, etc)
Develop and refine a system concept
Determines if additional analysis, synthesis, or
trade-off studies are required to make a selection
Trade studies support selection of the
best or most balanced solution
CC04264141.ppt
Mod J

Purposes of Trade Study

Trade studies - General
Identify and execute trade-offs among requirements, design, schedule, and cost
Support decision needs of system engineering process
Level of study commensurate with cost, schedule, performance, and risk impact
Requirements analysis trade studies
Establish alternative performance and functional requirements
Resolve conflicts between requirements
Functional analysis/allocation trade studies
Support functional analysis and allocation
Determine preferred set of requirements for function interface
Determine requirements for lower-level functions
Evaluate alternative architectures
Synthesis trade studies
Establish system/CI configurations
Assist in selecting system concepts and design
Select HW/SW, make or by, examined proposal changes, etc.
System/cost effectiveness analysis
Develop MOEs hierarchy
Identify critical MOEs as TPMs
CC04264142.ppt
Mod J

Trade Study Guidelines

Boeing Systems Engineering Manual

Disciplined process
Fair and consistent evaluations
All affected aspects of program participate
Trade study leader to help focus and coordinate

Best
balanced
solution

DSMC Systems Engineering Fundamentals

Formal decision analysis method
Solve complex problems with more than one
selection criterion
Provide documented decision rationale

CC04264143.ppt
Mod J

Integrate and
balance all
requirements

Value of Trade Study Process

Systemization of thought
Clarification of options, problem structure, and
available trade-offs
Improved communication of ideas and professional
judgement within the organization
Improved communication of rationale for action to
others outside the organization
Confidence that all available information has been
accounted for in a decision

CC04264144.ppt
Mod J

Trade Study Functions in Each

Acquisition Phase
Acquisition phase

Trade study emphasis

Pre-Concept Exploration

Compare alternative sets of requirements to see how

they meet general customer needs
Compare technologies and approaches
Evaluate concepts for meeting mission needs
Select alternate system configurations
Select preferred technologies
Reduce alternatives to a testable number
Select component/part designs
Select testing methods
Select support processes
Examine advantages of proposed design changes
Evaluate new mission requirements
Assess incorporation of new technologies

Concept Exploration
and Definition
Program Definition
& Risk Reduction
Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development
Production &
Deployment

Trade study emphasis areas change

throughout the acquisition process
CC04264145.ppt
Mod J

Trade Study Process Key Elements

Define the
problem

Establish
evaluation
criteria

Quantify downselected
alternatives
Performance
Weight
Reliability
Producibility
Safety
Etc

Develop
alternative
solutions

Order alternatives
relative to criteria

Screen
alternatives

Prepare Trade
Study Report

Scope of application of any one step will vary

depending on a programs current acquisition phase
CC04264146.ppt
Mod J

Trade Study Process Flow

Define objectives
and requirements
Formulate
evaluation criteria
Identify alternative
Select configurations
Weigh the
criteria

Quantify
evaluation criteria

Prepare utility
functions*

Evaluate
alternatives
Perform
sensitivity checks

* Software tool is available

CC04264147.ppt
Mod J

Execute
decisions

Develop costing
functions

QFD Identifies and Supports Trade Studies

The correlation matrix identifies the
relationship between the HOWs

Correlation Matrix
HOW vs HOW
Strong positive
Positive
No relation
Negative
Strong negative

IPTs identify the conflicts or synergies between

each of the HOWs in the roof of the house of quality
CC04264148.ppt
Mod J

Establishment of Effective
Evaluation Criteria

CC04264149.ppt
Mod J

Must reflect all technical requirements

Must reflect business objectives
Must be closely linked to TPMs
Effective screening/evaluation criteria must:
Differentiate meaningfully between alternatives without bias
Relate directly to the purpose of the trade study, i.e., they are
requirements based
Be broadly based to ensure coverage of all decision factors
Be independent of each other to the greatest degree possible
Be universally understood by all trade study participants

Example of Evaluation Criteria

Life Cycle Cost
Supportability
Performance
Formulate
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
CC04264150.ppt
Mod J

Weight
Power
Accuracy
Size
Cost
Schedule
Risk
Testability
Supportability
Complexity
Reliability
Maintainability
Safety

Quantify
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.

Weight = 565 lb
Power = 32 kW
Accuracy = 2 m
Size = 2 ft3
Cost = $1.2M
Schedule = 3.5 yr
Risk = Medium
Testability = 99% FD/FI
Supportability = 3 tools
Complexity = Medium
Reliability = 500 hr MTBF
Maintainability = 0.5 MMH/FH
Safety = 99.999%

Sources of Design Trade Study Decision Criteria

Business Objectives
Mission Area Analysis

Concept Exploration

Program Definition
& Risk Reduction

Engineering &
Manufacturing
Development

Production & Deployment

CC04264151.ppt
Mod J

Program management business plan

Service mission roles
Mission area plans (MAPS)
Voice of the customer
Justification for major system new start -Mission Need
Statement (MNS)
System performance requirements
Acquisition decision memorandum
Operational requirements Document (ORD)
System specification
Test and evaluation master plan
Technical Performance Measurements (TPMs)
Planning, programming, and budgeting system documentation
Configuration Item Specifications (CIS)
Requirements Allocation Document (RADs)
TPMs
Integrated program Summary
Planning, programming, and budgeting system documentation
Existing technical manuals
Logistics plan
Production plan
Fielding plan

Identification of Alternatives
Reflect widest range of different solutions
Sources include:
Predetermined, competitive bids
Developed

CC04264152.ppt
Mod J

Customer
Synthesis
Brainstorming, all disciplines
QFD
Experience
Suppliers

Identification of Alternatives
Maximum limit
of affordability

Cost

Most tradeoffs
occur in this region
where decisions
are difficult

Minimum
acceptable
effectiveness
Cost
target
(goal)

Effectiveness

CC04264153.ppt
Mod J

Effectiveness
goal

Screen Alternatives

Eliminate alternatives which do not appear to meet

requirements (go/no-go tests or killer trades)
Eliminate alternatives with low probability of
successful implementation
Eliminate alternatives which are expected to exceed
cost and schedule constraints

CC04264154.ppt
Mod J

Example of Uncoupling and Killer Trades

Evaluate and select propulsion subsystem for long
range conventional cruise missile
System Reqts: Range 2,000 NM
Launcher-ship VLS, be compatible and maintain
commonality
All other requirements held constant (e.g. lethality)
SOW Task:

Propulsion subsystem
Turbojet

Type

Turbofan

Propfan

Subsonic

Speed
Altitude

Rocket Ramjet Rocket Scramjet

Supersonic

Hypersonic...

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

High

High

High

High

Range, NM

1,200

1,600

1,600

2,000

2,100

2,600

500

800

200

300

Meets reqt

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Uncoupling allowed looking at propulsion subsystem only

Killer trade reduced concepts from 10 down to 3 for more
detailed analysis
CC04264155.ppt
Mod J

Quantify Downselected Alternatives

Performance
Weight
Reliability
Producibility
Safety
Affordability
Schedule
Risk
Etc
CC04264156.ppt
Mod J

Sample Criteria Weighting

Mission
capability
0.16

Speed &
endurance

0.09

0.33

Cargo
capacity

Logistics/
R&M
0.05

Speed at
max power
0.11

Endurance
at 27 kts

0.24

Safety
0.09

Max tank
condition
0.17

No. of
tanks
No. of
vehicles
0.02

No. of
containers

0.36

Cargo
capability
0.27

Max helo
condition

0.05

CC04264157.ppt
Mod J

0.06

Pierside
0.06

No. of
helos
0.02

No. of
vehicles
0.01

No. of
containers

0.09

In-stream

Sample Prioritization Input Sheet

SL-7 CLASS CONVERSION TRADE-OFF STUDIES
PRIORITIZATION SURVEY
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION AS TO WHICH MISSION
CAPABILITY ATTRIBUTE IS MORE IMPORTANT
TO MISSION SUCCESS?
MISSION ATTRIBUTE

MISSION ATTRIBUTE

CARGO CAPACITY

98765432123456789

CARGO CAPACITY

CARGO CAPACITY

98765432123456789

SPEED & ENDURANCE

CARGO CAPACITY

98765432123456789

LOGISTICS/R&M

CARGO CAPACITY

98765432123456789

SAFETY

CARGO CAPABILITY

98765432123456789

SPEED & ENDURANCE

CARGO CAPABILITY

98765432123456789

LOGISTICS/R&M

CARGO CAPABILITY

98765432123456789

SAFETY

SPEED & ENDURANCE

98765432123456789

SPEED & ENDURANCE

SPEED & ENDURANCE

98765432123456789

SAFETY

LOGISTICS/R&M

98765432123456789

SAFETY

CC04264158.ppt
Mod J

Sample Multi-Attribute System

Effectiveness Model
100

System
30

20

Life cycle
cost

Schedule
15

Demo

10

IOC

RDT & E

CC04264159.ppt
Mod J

FOC

Performance

15

MTBF

O&M

30

Availability

10

Prod

20

10

CEP

MTTR

10

Lethality

Range

Response
time

Sample Utility Curves

10
8
6
Score 4
2
0
1000

500
MTBF (hr)

0
0.5 1.0 1.5
Air alignment time (hr)

98

99
IOC

10
8
6
Score 4
2
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Max
0
In-flight accuracy
Nuclear hardness
(CEP drift rate, NM/hr)
CC04264160.ppt
Mod J

97
98
1st prod del

00

Sample Weighted Summary Table

Alternatives
Criteria
[weight]

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Score

Weighted
score

Score

Weighted
score

Score

Weighted
score

Score

Weighted
score

Score

Weighted
score

A [15]

3.1-3.5

46.5-52.5

4.2-5.9

63.0-88.5

6.0-6.5

90.0-97.5

3.5-5.2

52.5-78.0

4.5-5.0

60.0-82.5

B [20]

3.9-4.6

78.0-92.0

7.8-8.2 156.0-164.0 8.9-9.2 178.0-184.0 6.4-6.9 128.0-138.0 7.6-8.1 152.0-162.0

C [10]

5.2-6.0

52.0-60.0

4.3-6.0

D [35]

9.0-9.5 315.0-332.5 7.0-7.3 245.0-255.5 8.5-9.0 297.5-315.0 9.7-9.9 339.5-346.5 6.7-7.2 234.5-252.0

E [20]

5.0-6.7 100.0-134.0 3.5-4.5

70.0-90.0

Total

591.5-671.0

577.0-658.0

CC04264161.ppt
Mod J

43.0-60.0

7.0-8.2

70.0-82.0

7.3-8.5

73.0-85.0

9.2-9.5

92.0-95.0

5.0-6.0 100.0-120.0 6.9-7.2 138.0-144.0 7.8-8.2 156.0-164.0

735.5-798.5

731.0-791.5

694.5-755.5

Trade Study Report

Ref Boeing Systems Engineering Process Manual
1. Introduction
Problem description
Ground rules/assumptions
Constraints
2. Concepts
Range of options
Procedure used
Drawings/data sheets
3. Downselected alternatives
Screening/downselection
process
Evaluation criteria
Weighting factors
Results of screening
CC04264162.ppt
Mod J

4. Quantified technical impact

Detailed studies
Additional assumptions
Additional analysis
5. Conclusions and
recommendations
Reasoning
Additional recommendations

Trade Study Product Characteristics

In order to meet customer quality requirements, each Trade Study
conducted within Product Definition is expected to be characterized
by a consistent set of elements which include . . .
Clear problem statement
Identification of requirements that must be achieved
Ground rules and assumptions
Decision criteria
Resource requirements statement (source/man hrs reqd)
Schedule to accomplish (proposed and actual)
Potential solutions and screening matrix
Comprehensive array of feasible alternatives
Comparisons of alternatives using decision criteria
Technical recommendation of trade study leader
Documentation of decisions leading to recommendation
CC04264163.ppt
Mod J

Why Do Trade Studies?

Have all the alternatives been considered?

CC04264164.ppt
Mod J

The Name of the Game - Trade-Offs

Performance
requirements
Technical
parameters

Producibility

Cost
Reliability

Schedule

Maintainability

CC04264165.ppt
Mod J