Slide1HALL'S MORPHOLOGY vs COMPREHENSIVE METHODOLOGY Investigation of systems engineering reveals three fundamental dimensions: 1.The first is a time dimension segmented by major decision. The intervals between there can be called phases and they define a coarse structure depicting a sequence of activities in the life of a project from inception to retirement 2.The second dimension models a problem solving procedure, the steps of which may be performed any order, but each of which must be performed no matter what the problem. These steps may be repeated in successive phases. The flow of logic, not time, is the essesntial feature of this dimension and this logic comprises the fine structure of systems engineering. 3.The third dimension refers to the body of facts, models, and procedures which define a discipline, profession or technology. A possible measure for this dimension is the degree of formal or mathematical structure. The intervals along this scale in decreasing order of formal structure might be engineering, medicine, architecture, business, management, law… Combining the first two dimensions produces a model of methodology of systems engineering which at once organizes and defines the field independent of any profession.
Slide3FORMULATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION Systems methodology and the systems engineering process are described in the middle box in this figure and the representation used for this is a two-dimesional morphological box. One of these morphological box frameworks needs to be associated with each of the three life cycles that are associared with overall systems engineering effort. FORMULATION: Such as to identify the needs to be archieved and requirements associated with these term of objective to be satisfied; constraints and alterable that affect issue resolution and generation of potential alternative courses of action •Problem definition involves isolating, quantifying and clarifying the neesd that create the issue at hand and describing that set of enviromental factors that constrain alterables for the system to be developed. •Value System Design involves selection of the set of objectives or goals that guide the search for alternatives. •System synthesis involves seaching for or hypothesizing a set of alternative courses of action or options.
Slide5ANALYSIS: Such as to enable us to determine the impacts of alternatives courses of action including possible refinement of these alternatives. •System analysis involves determining specific impacts or consequences that were specified as relevant by the value system. These impacts may relate to such important concers as product quality, market, relialibity, cost and effectiveness or benefits. •Refinement of the alternatives refers to adjusting, sometimes by optimizing the system parameters for each alternative in order to meet system objectives. INTERPRETATION: Such as to enable us to rank the alternatives in terms of need satisfaction and to select one for implementations or additional study. •Decision assessment as a conscious activity will lead to decision making. This invılves evaluating the impacts or consequences of the alternatives developed in analysis relative to the value system. •Planning for action includes communicating the results of the effort to this point. It includes such pragmatic efforts as scheduling subsequent efforts, allocating recources to accomplish them and setting up system management teams.
Slide4REFERENCES •https://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.sysc/files/sysc513_HallMorphology.pdf •Handbook of Systems Engineering and Management Second Edition – Andrew P. Sage, William B. Rouse •Lecture Notes of SYS5160 Systems Integration – Ali Hassan Abbas •http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/courses/aoe4065/SE.pdf •https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_David_Hall_III