Summarize the context of your chosen case, using enough detail to support your subsequent analysis. ?( 2 cases studies were us

Budgetary Variance Model Radiology Department

Introduction

The selected "case study is Hubble Space Telescope System" Engineering, an astronomical observation that operates in orbit. It is mainly used to carry several instruments that produce photometric, imagining, astrometric and spectrographic data via parallel and pointed observing programs. What I saw interesting in this case study was how the system engineering concepts were used during the Hubble Space Telescope and made after the Hubble Space Telescope project. It was also interesting to learn about the size of the Hubble Space Telescope that was almost the size of a larger bus and had a weight approximated to 24,500 pounds. The Hubble Space Telescope has observed about 13.4 billion locations, which means it has witnessed the light that has existed in the World in the “13.4 billion years ago". Many scientists have understood how planets and galaxies form by using a telescope.

The principles products and activities that were used to develop this project includes the following; –

1. “LP1, Early and full participation by the customer/user throughout the program are essential to success”.

2. “LP 2, The use of Pre-Program Trade Studies (Phased Studies or Phased Project Planning in NASA parlance at the time) to broadly explore technical concepts and alternatives is essential and provides for a healthy variety of inputs from a variety of contractors and government (NASA) centers."

3. “LP 3, A high degree of systems integration to assemble, test, deploy, and operate the system is essential to success and must be identified as a fundamental program resource need as part of the program baseline”.

4. “LP 4, life cycle support planning and execution must be integral from day one, including concept and design phases”.

5. “LP 5, “for complex programs, the number of players (government and contractor) demands that the program be structured to cope with high-risk factors in many management and technical areas simultaneously."

The development process used in the Hubble Space Telescope process was established at the start of the HST Project as a link between the astronomy community and NASA. It has external input to the Hubble Space Telescope operations and the NASA decisions regarding commencing design, necessity, on-orbit operations, and maintenance. The STScI makes sure there is early and full participation by users and customers that will be important in the final success. In the Conceptual design and architecting phase, the Hubble Space Systems uses the pre-program trade studies to access more technical alternatives and concepts. The example I noted in the case study is a selection of primary mirror size, which was initially 3 meters. Still, after cost trade studies that found the primary mirror meters below 2.4, NASA deducted the mirror to 2.4 meters, which led to a reduction in the cost. The extent to which this development process reflected on my understanding of the system life cycle is that it has equipped me with knowledge on how planets and galaxies get formed. I note that galaxies consist of billion. This development has also earned skills on explosions that take place when huge stars are burning out.

The best practices that were missing in the early years after the Hubble Space Telescope was launched in 1990 was that the main mirror was improperly grounded, leading to the spherical aberration consisting of telescopes capabilities. In 1993, the optics were amended to their initial quality through the servicing mission.

The deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope system was achieved by payload configuration from the Hubble Space Systems that was stored in the “shuttle orbiter payload bay” by the use of active keel fitting and the latch retention assemblies. Some control interface power, connect and disconnect umbilical and complex electrical interfaces, and a set up was done in "remote operation from the Orbiter flight deck." Closed-circuit TV and berthing aids were available. Hubble Space Telescope is customized for light during the launching pad at the end of "prelaunch testing." All-important bus electrical, key shutters, and heater get powered in the process.

The Orbiter powered the bus from prelaunch via the deployment and was observed by a computer system known as Orbiter; this gave the crews grounds to identify any computerized failure that may arise in the internal bus power. The deployment complete set operation can be described effectively with the significant deployment event 19. Examples can be seen in "LP 3, A high degree of systems integration to assemble, test, deploy, and operate the system is essential to success and must be identified as a fundamental program resource need as part of the program baseline". The lesson I have learned is HSP helps collect light from the comic object so that we can be in a position to understand our universe.

The Hubble Space Telescope System will still be maintained in space by the astronauts responsible for upgrading and replacing the system. The system's future evolution will be managed and planned until 2030 to 2040, with one successor known as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). An example is when the astronauts were involved in replacing equipment “housed in the equipment section in the orbital replacement units."

References

· Hubble Space Telescope Systems Engineering Case Study

,

1

Stakeholder needs and system requirements represent the views of stakeholders, customers, acquirers, and users relating to a specific problem or an opportunity; these requirements provide a solution to a particular problem in the business environment. Salado (2021) notes that disparities in these requirements can contribute to the application and conceptual inconstancies due to the poor formulation of the requirements. Stakeholder needs and system requirements can be captured in different ways; therefore, different methods were used to accommodate diverse sources. First, the requirements were captured through brainstorming workshops; these workshops involved meeting people virtually or in person to draw out, discuss, explain and come up with ideas to solve the problems by creating something new. The other formal process used were the interviews and questionnaires; all stakeholders were involved in various discussions, and those who could not avail themselves received questionnaires. The feedback from these interviews and responses from the questionnaires were crucial in the elicitation process. They were successful, and the information provided was crucial for the system requirements.

System requirements include requirements that must be present for a system to work smoothly and effectively; they can be software or hardware. The system's needs were established through stakeholder consultation; during the brainstorming workshops, the developers proposed system requirements that would improve the functionality of the current system. This proposal was passed to the stakeholders through interviews and questionnaires and approved. Therefore, the system requirement was a technology push; the business has been operating on an outdated technology which has been slow and ineffective. The functional constraints and data requirements have been below the minimum recommended configuration. Thus, the system was operating on software dependencies, and necessary upgrades were significant to keep it up and to run.

In software engineering, requirements are evaluated in the software development process. The users' needs were successfully translated into engineering specifications by considering functional and non-functional requirements. Demands from users and other stakeholders are translated into engineering specifications because they represent their desires. However, some problems may arise if the managers are responsible for representing the users and other stakeholders. The significant issues that arise are the managers can provide completely wrong requirements because they have never been users. Secondly, the solution may not be helpful to the user if it was designed to provide a solution that works for the managers. Lastly, market research can be detrimental if the manager does not involve the actual users in addressing their needs. However, in this case, the users were involved in every stage of the requirements. Their responses were crucial in addressing the problems.

The needs of the users and stakeholders were translated into engineering specifications because the solutions were blended into user experience and stakeholders' feedback. The purpose of engineering-specific solutions is to create end-user solutions and reduce the possibility of the problem attributed to the software. The business sends representatives to the real users and stakeholders and observes how the system works and relates to their environment. These visits aim to ensure the success of stakeholder and user-driven projects; when the people interact with the system and observe the users, the feedback from these observations provides an engineering perspective on the possibility of bias and takes care of practices that would not be captured in the questionnaires. Thus the requirements were successfully translated into “engineering-speak” because the information collected was first hand and it directly related to the users and stakeholders. They impacted the performance of the system and access to the services, which translated to the need for improvement of the system.

Requirements gathering defines software requirements because every project has requirements. The most significant steps are requirement elicitation, requirements documentation, and requirements understanding. The requirements were well-managed because the goals and objectives were established early. A framework is substantial; although the managers might think they do not need the objectives, there was an urge to write them down and have the stakeholders sign off on them; lack of framework would affect the future decision-making process. Secondly, data gathering was effectively managed through transparency in the documentation of the requirements. Stakeholders and users can understand the requirements, but the biggest question is how you know the needs. The transparency ensured everyone was on the same page and fostered buy-in sense throughout the project. The right stakeholders and users were engaged in the requirements gathering. However, these people were not the decision-makers in the project, and their buy-in was significant in the project's success. Throughout the systems engineering process, the requirements gathering prevented "scope creep" by avoiding forcing users and stakeholders to use a system designed without their consent. A project is more likely to fail if the users are omitted because their ingredient is crucial in the systems engineering process.

Business requirements played a crucial role in managing the requirements gathering; the essential step was to ensure the administration focused on the business requirement and not the tools. Adapting the system engineering to the user was more important than worrying about producing the system. Therefore, listening and gathering requirements was the first step, then the gaps between the stakeholder’s and user’s needs were identified later. The requirements are about "what" and not "how"; therefore, the user's needs are more important than the means of achieving because users represent the most significant portion of the stakeholders.

Reference

Salado, A. (2021). A systems‐theoretic articulation of stakeholder needs and system requirements. Systems Engineering, 24(2), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21568

,

1

Global Positioning Systems

Before looking at the case study, it is essential to familiarize yourself with the Trade-off study. It is worth noting that it needs good decision-making for the success of any systems engineering. The tradeoff studies provide the essential information for an Engineer and other program managers in completing their life cycle. (Calderini (2018). There are many engineering system decisions that are very difficult as they require the involvement of some stakeholders, high accountability, and completing objectives. This leads us to a tradeoff, an essential tool in making a formal decision management process.

In looking at the Global Positioning System (GPS) case study, I was able to identify tradeoff studies that were being conducted. First and foremost, there was a great need for the military to locate the position at a different part of the globe during their navigation in air, sea, and the land. (Stiff (2018). From my observation, I identified that the engineering tradeoffs that examined the design were timing capability, position, and navigation. This based my argument on the fact that the military needs to know the time; they will also be required to know their actual position and navigation adaptability. This supports the GPS project as they are dictating factors of the project.

In evaluating the team's decision about specific technical specifications, I identified the most appropriate decision was arrived at. Going back to the Engineering project process, team decision plays an essential role before looking at the alternative conclusion. There were many challenges that the military experienced when going in the battle, especially in the different countries, thus needed to locate the location and time. Having looked keenly at the GPS satellite process, I identified that the team was able to use rational decision-making to identify the problem needed to locate the military in different parts of the globe. Several optional solutions, such as using the network, were not effective. Their evaluation of the optional solution and GPS was selected. (Jond (2020). Later on, the answer was implemented, and the project was subsequently evaluated. Having followed all this, I can conclude that the trade-off studies adequately informed the decision.

In developing the project management using team decision-making, I identified that the GPS project required different segments such as space vehicles, User equipment, and the control station. Having looked at the GPS project, I recognized that the project's cost was beyond the prediction, and the schedule set for the project exceeded one year. This is a clear indication that the project capital overrun is predicted due to uncertainties from the project, such as inflation of some space vehicles and even the labor. In handling all these project uncertainties, I identified that the project teams had side allocated some cash to cater to delays. This side-given capital ensured that the projects continued smoothly. It is worth noting that the tradeoff played an essential role in catering to the uncertainties resulting from different equipment for the project.

In conclusion, having looked at the GPS project case study, I was able to identify the essential role that tradeoffs played. Through the trade-off, there is a complete understanding of every decision that ensures that resources have been maximally utilized. In the decision-making process, engineers must trade off widely using different concepts to maximize the preference of the design. It helps in coming up with the best alternative.

References

O'Brien & Griffin (2007). Global Positioning System Systems Engineering Case Study. AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH CENTER FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.

Beato, Devereux & Stiff (2018). Validity and reliability of global positioning system units (STATSports Viper) for measuring distance and peak speed in sports. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 32(10), 2833

Gharajeh & Jond (2020). Hybrid global positioning system-adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system based autonomous mobile robot navigation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 134,

Gharajeh & Jond (2020). Hybrid global positioning system-adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system based autonomous mobile robot navigation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 134,

Quintero, Molero, Reynolds & Calderini (2018). The tradeoff between grain weight and grain number in wheat depends on GxE interaction: an elite CIMMYT panel (CIMCOG) case study. European journal of agronomy, 27

,

1

6

Risk Management

Methods of Risk Identification

One of the most critical and necessary elements in the risk assessment process is identifying risk. If any phase in the risk management process fails to identify a specific threat, all other steps will be skipped for that risk. Project risks can be identified by using the following methods.

Brainstorming involves bringing a group of people together to reflect and explore a subject and generate solutions (Shi et al., 2022). Brainstorming allows team members involved in the organization's daily running to identify potential threats at various sections of the organization. For instance, in the office relocation project, all project team was involved through meetings to help identify and classify risks into financial and technical risks.

Stakeholder’s interviews and analysis: Stakeholders are interested in the project; thus, interviewing them allows the project team to grasp better what they perceive as the main risks. They see danger from an investor's standpoint rather than an employee or the project manager. This point of view might assist you in determining what affects your shareholders and how to manage them (Shi et al., 2022). Engagement with the project shareholders such as customers, employees, and suppliers helped identify and group risks based on their potential impact on the project.

Root cause analysis: A root cause analysis entails looking into prior project hazards and how they connect and the current project. Financial difficulties, old equipment, or low-quality materials can contribute to. Finding the core cause can help the team identify and avoid typical project or business difficulties, resulting in increased project efficiency. This process involved reviewing similar projects that have been done before. The information gathered was vital in understanding the potential perils.

Requirement review: A requirements review examines a project's financial workforce, material, requirements, allowing the team to study requirements more frequently and immediately identify potential problems. For instance, if the project's financial needs are very high and the firm's economic powers are low, this may result in financial risk. Therefore the firm can plan on how to get additional funding. The project's budget requirements review was an important way of identifying the risk throughout the project development.

Methods Used For Monitoring Risks

Risk monitoring is the practice of tracking and evaluating the severity and the level of risks in an organization. This process is critical; as such, it should be done skillfully to assess the potential impacts of the identified risks (Romanak & Dixon, 2021). The following methods are essential in this process.

Trend and variance analysis: Trend and variance analysis involve paying closer attention to the movement in the budget and actual costs or changes in the market environment. If the investigation shows an increasing trend in the project's worth, it may indicate an impending financial crisis. The project implementation team focused on the project's estimated expenditure and the actual cost incurred. Any variation in this cost was subjected to analysis and appropriate remedial actions.

Holding status meetings: Meetings are another critical way to monitor the risks. Once a threat has been identified, the project manager can take a lead role in engaging other project team members to track, observe and measure the impacts of the risk on the project. The project implementation team conducted several meetings during project development that were essential for assessing the effects of the risk on the project.

Risk audits: A risk audit involves the investigation and documentation of the impacts of the identified risks. The information gathered during the audit gives more insight to the project team on the best way to handle risks (Romanak & Dixon, 2021). Throughout the project development, the team consulted and engaged financial and technical experts to help give insight to the committee on the impacts of financial and technical risks on the project.

Risk reassessment: Risks have a different level of threat to the project, and they should be prioritized based on the impacts on the project. Risk reassessment helps monitor and rank risks, thus enabling the implementation team to handle the risks appropriately. Through regular project assessment, the development team monitored and screened the identified risks.

Methods of Mitigating Risks

Risk mitigations are strategies and plans prepared by the organization to help minimize the effects of risk. When done meticulously, the firm can reduce resources it could otherwise have lost (Anderson et al., 2019). Various risk mitigation strategies can be used, as discussed below.

Risk transfer: Involves outsourcing or shifting the risk to a third party or insurance company. Risk transfers don't essentially result in savings of cost. Instead, if a firm moves a threat, it reduces losses in the future, so while insurance can be costly, it may be more cost-saving than allowing the hazard to occur and being fully accountable. For instance, the project team outsourced the IT management services to an IT expert firm during the project development.

Avoiding risk: If the risk identified is too significant for the firm to bear, the best way of mitigating the risk is to avoid implementing the project. In this case, avoiding risk means not executing the activity that leads to danger. The project development team managed the identified risk by prioritizing the project's basic requirements.

Risk reduction involves setting a level at which the project team can accept the risk. This level of risk acceptance is known as the residual risk level. Risk reduction entails taking countermeasures to lessen the effects of the risk (Anderson, 2019). This risk mitigation method is very effective since there is always a predetermined channel for handling risk. For instance, the project development team successfully reduced financial risk by strictly and closely monitoring the cost of the project.

References

Anderson, G., Ebersole, D., Covington, D., & Denoble, P. J. (2019). The effectiveness of risk mitigation interventions in divers with persistent (patent) foramen ovale. Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine, 49(2), 80.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc6704009/

Romanak, K., & Dixon, T. (2021). Technical monitoring considerations for advancing CCS Projects under the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard about other global regulatory regimes. Available at SSRN 3811985.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3811985

Shi, L., Zhang, J. F., Li, W., & Yang, K. (2022). Development of New Technologies for Risk Identification of Schistosomiasis Transmission in China. Pathogens, 11(2), 224.

https://www.mdpi.com/1489116

,