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
Best
– Fair and consistent evaluations
balanced
– All affected aspects of program participate solution
– Trade study leader to help focus and coordinate

• DSMC Systems Engineering Fundamentals

– Formal decision analysis method
Integrate and
– Solve complex problems with more than one
balance all
selection criterion requirements
– Provide documented decision rationale

CC04264143.ppt
Mod J
 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
Concept Exploration • Compare technologies and approaches
and Definition • Evaluate concepts for meeting mission needs
• Select alternate system configurations
Program Definition • Select preferred technologies
& Risk Reduction • Reduce alternatives to a testable number
Engineering & • Select component/part designs
Manufacturing • Select testing methods
Development • Select support processes
Production & • Examine advantages of proposed design changes
Deployment • Evaluate new mission requirements
• Assess incorporation of new technologies

Trade study emphasis areas change

throughout the acquisition process
CC04264145.ppt
Mod J
 Trade Study Process Key Elements
Define the Quantify downselected
problem alternatives
– Performance
– Weight
Establish – Reliability
evaluation – Producibility
criteria – Safety
– Etc

Develop
alternative Order alternatives
solutions relative to criteria

Screen Prepare Trade

alternatives Study Report

Scope of application of any one step will vary

depending on a program’s current acquisition phase
CC04264146.ppt
Mod J
 Trade Study Process Flow
Define objectives
and requirements

Formulate
evaluation criteria

Identify alternative
Select configurations

Weigh the Quantify

criteria evaluation criteria
Develop costing
functions
Prepare utility Evaluate
functions* alternatives

Perform
sensitivity checks

Execute
* Software tool is available
decisions
CC04264147.ppt
Mod J
 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

• 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

CC04264149.ppt
Mod J
 Example of Evaluation Criteria
• Life Cycle Cost
• Supportability
• Performance
Formulate Quantify
a. Weight a. Weight = 565 lb
b. Power b. Power = 32 kW
c. Accuracy c. Accuracy = 2 m
d. Size d. Size = 2 ft3
e. Cost e. Cost = $1.2M
f. Schedule f. Schedule = 3.5 yr
g. Risk g. Risk = Medium
h. Testability h. Testability = 99% FD/FI
i. Supportability i. Supportability = 3 tools
j. Complexity j. Complexity = Medium
k. Reliability k. Reliability = 500 hr MTBF
l. Maintainability l. Maintainability = 0.5 MMH/FH
m. Safety m. Safety = 99.999%
CC04264150.ppt
Mod J
 Sources of Design Trade Study Decision Criteria
Business Objectives • Program management business plan
Mission Area Analysis • Service mission roles
• Mission area plans (MAPS)
• Voice of the customer
Concept Exploration • Justification for major system new start -Mission Need
Statement (MNS)
• System performance requirements
• Acquisition decision memorandum
Program Definition • Operational requirements Document (ORD)
& Risk Reduction • System specification
• Test and evaluation master plan
• Technical Performance Measurements (TPMs)
• Planning, programming, and budgeting system documentation
Engineering & • Configuration Item Specifications (CIS)
Manufacturing • Requirements Allocation Document (RADs)
Development • TPMs
• Integrated program Summary
• Planning, programming, and budgeting system documentation
Production & Deployment • Existing technical manuals
• Logistics plan
• Production plan
• Fielding plan
CC04264151.ppt
Mod J
 Identification of Alternatives

• Reflect widest range of different solutions

• Sources include:
– Predetermined, competitive bids
– Developed
• Customer
• Synthesis
• Brainstorming, all disciplines
• QFD
• Experience
• Suppliers

CC04264152.ppt
Mod J
 Identification of Alternatives

Maximum limit
of affordability

Most tradeoffs
occur in this region
Cost Minimum where decisions
acceptable are difficult
effectiveness
Effectiveness
Cost
goal
target
(goal)

Effectiveness

CC04264153.ppt
Mod J
 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
SOW Task: • Evaluate and select propulsion subsystem for long
range conventional cruise missile
System Req’ts: • Range 2,000 NM
• Launcher-ship VLS, be compatible and maintain
commonality
• All other requirements held constant (e.g. lethality)
Propulsion subsystem
Type Turbojet Turbofan Propfan Rocket Ramjet Rocket Scramjet
Speed Subsonic Supersonic Hypersonic...
Altitude 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 0.09 0.33 0.06 0.36

Speed & Logistics/ Cargo Cargo
Safety
endurance R&M capacity capability

0.05 0.24 0.09 0.27

Speed at Max tank Max helo
Pierside
max power condition condition
0.11 0.17 0.06 0.09
Endurance No. of No. of
In-stream
at 27 kts tanks helos
0.05 0.02
No. of No. of
vehicles vehicles
0.02 0.01
No. of No. of
containers containers
CC04264157.ppt
Mod J
 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 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 CARGO CAPACITY
CARGO CAPACITY 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SPEED & ENDURANCE
CARGO CAPACITY 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 LOGISTICS/R&M
CARGO CAPACITY 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SAFETY
CARGO CAPABILITY 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SPEED & ENDURANCE
CARGO CAPABILITY 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 LOGISTICS/R&M
CARGO CAPABILITY 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SAFETY
SPEED & ENDURANCE 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SPEED & ENDURANCE
SPEED & ENDURANCE 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SAFETY
LOGISTICS/R&M 9–8–7–6–5–4–3–2–1–2–3–4–5–6–7–8–9 SAFETY

CC04264158.ppt
Mod J
 Sample Multi-Attribute System
Effectiveness Model
100

System

30 20 20 30
Life cycle
Schedule Availability Performance
cost

15 10 5 15 5

Demo IOC FOC MTBF MTTR

5 10 5 10 10 5 5
Response
RDT & E Prod O&M CEP Lethality Range
time

CC04264159.ppt
Mod J
 Sample Utility Curves
10
8
6
Score 4
2
0
1000 500 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 98 99 00
MTBF (hr) Air alignment time (hr) IOC

10
8
6
Score 4
2
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Max 0 97 98
In-flight accuracy Nuclear hardness 1st prod del
(CEP drift rate, NM/hr)
CC04264160.ppt
Mod J
 Sample Weighted Summary Table

Alternatives
Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
[weight]
Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted
Score Score Score Score Score
score score score score 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 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

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

Total 591.5-671.0 577.0-658.0 735.5-798.5 731.0-791.5 694.5-755.5

CC04264161.ppt
Mod J
 Trade Study Report
Ref Boeing Systems Engineering Process Manual
1. Introduction 4. Quantified technical impact
– Problem description – Detailed studies
– Ground rules/assumptions – Additional assumptions
– Constraints – Additional analysis
2. Concepts 5. Conclusions and
– Range of options recommendations
– Procedure used – Reasoning
– Drawings/data sheets – Additional recommendations
3. Downselected alternatives
– Screening/downselection
process
– Evaluation criteria
– Weighting factors
– Results of screening
CC04264162.ppt
Mod J
 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

Schedule Reliability

Maintainability

CC04264165.ppt
Mod J