References of "Moser, Hubert 2000E933"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailA method for function integrity diagnosis and documentation: FIDD
Wichmann, Robert; Gericke, Kilian UL; Eisenbart, Boris et al

in Proceedings of the International Design Conference - DESIGN 2018 (2018, May)

This paper introduces a method to perform systematic diagnosis of function integrity. The proposed method advances the Integrated Function Modelling framework to extend its application to risk ... [more ▼]

This paper introduces a method to perform systematic diagnosis of function integrity. The proposed method advances the Integrated Function Modelling framework to extend its application to risk identification and documentation tasks. By analyzing the system model of interdisciplinary designs, this method guides the designer to explore function vulnerability by systematic decoupling of inherent design entities. Thereby it provides unique opportunities for failure mode identification in complex, interdisciplinary systems. The motivation for this method is ensuring system function integrity. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 125 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailAdapting a design approach: A case study in a small space company
Gericke, Kilian UL; Moser, Hubert UL

in Heisig, Peter; Clarkson, John (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Modelling and Management of Engineering Processes (2014)

Over the past decades many design process models have been proposed in design methodologies, standards, and guidelines. The development of design methodologies is accompanied by an ongoing debate ... [more ▼]

Over the past decades many design process models have been proposed in design methodologies, standards, and guidelines. The development of design methodologies is accompanied by an ongoing debate concerning the applicability of the proposed process models in practice. While many authors highlight the usefulness of design methodologies for training of novices, it is recurrently reported that design methodologies are only seldom applied in design practice. An argument usually produced concerns the abstract character of the design methodologies. While some authors put the whole idea of design methodologies into question, most authors agree that design methodologies are useful but need further development in order to enhance their applicability. Currently there are two main axes for further development of design methodologies: the rising interdisciplinarity in design practice which is not sufficiently addressed in the rather mono-disciplinary design methodologies and the adaptation of design methodologies to different contexts, which is recommended by many authors but lacks a systematic support. This paper addresses the adaptation of a generic design approach to different contexts. The main research question concerns the rationale behind the adaptation. The paper reports a case study in the space industry. The case study is based on a document study, a series of expert interviews and draws from the experience of one of the authors involved in the company. The study compares the design processes of four projects, which show some major differences requiring an adaptation of the particular design approach. The design processes in the company are based on the ECSS (European Cooperation for Space Standardization) standards. The compliance with the processes and practices prescribed in these standards is mandatory for many projects. However, some projects allowed an adaptation of the design approach. It was found that the adaption respectively the tailoring of the design process as prescribed in the ECSS-standards, was driven, when allowed, by risks, costs, and contracting-partners associated with the project. In order to provide some guidance for future projects the company introduced a project categorization scheme which recommends a suitable approach for each project category. The analysis of the categorization scheme and the particular consequences for adaptation in the company allow drawing conclusions about the rationale of design process adaptation in practice, thus contributes to the debate on the applicability of design methodologies and generic design process models and provides some ideas for the support of a context dependent adaptation thereof. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 104 (12 UL)
See detailSystems Engineering, Systems Thinking, and Learning: a Case Study in Space Industry
Moser, Hubert UL

Doctoral thesis (2013)

Systems thinking is a prerequisite of systems engineering, which is performed in multi-disciplinary teams, i.e. software engineers, mechanical engineers, electronic engineers, and others, work together to ... [more ▼]

Systems thinking is a prerequisite of systems engineering, which is performed in multi-disciplinary teams, i.e. software engineers, mechanical engineers, electronic engineers, and others, work together to develop, build, and test technical systems such as space systems. The more team members consider a systems perspective the less rework is expected and the less effort of systems engineers is required. How systems thinking evolves in practice is not sufficiently understood. Therefore, work activity of multi-disciplinary teams has been studied in an empirical study. Data from multiple sources and of different temporal resolution has been collected over four years in four studies in space systems engineering. These studies are a concept exploration project in a summer school, two concept exploration projects in a concurrent design facility, and five projects in several lifecycle stages in a small space systems company. An analytical framework has been developed based on an activity-theoretical analysis and a theme-and-key-event analysis. Contradicting multiple roles, differences in parameter definition and impact, differences in work approaches and ways of interacting, contradicting work standards, trust and doubts in extra-disciplinary decisions, awareness of diversity and orientation towards extra-disciplinary interactors, and velocity and availability of information are identified contradictions with learning potential. These contradictions provoke initiators of multi-disciplinary interaction. These are proactive provision of extra-disciplinary advice and three types of questions: critical questioning across disciplinary boundaries, asking for extra-disciplinary advice, and questioning the current work approach. The contradictions prompt the selection of themes that comprise several key events. These themes and key events are analysed on three levels (macro, meso, and micro) with a focus on systems thinking content and discourse features. Systems thinking evolves in interaction within a broad temporal range, from minutes to years. It evolves vertically, i.e. within a discipline, and horizontally, i.e. across disciplines. The evolution of systems thinking is influenced by the multi-disciplinary quality of interaction. This quality is defined by the diversity or multi-disciplinarity of the interaction, the awareness of the diversity, the orientation towards extra-disciplinary interactors, the differences in interactional responsiveness, and the cohesion of interaction. Improving the multi-disciplinary quality of interaction to foster the evolution of systems thinking is the major goal of the developed WAVES (Work Activity for a Versatile Evolution of Systems engineering and thinking) strategy. The WAVES strategy comprises two paths. The first path focuses on the introduction of employees into professional life, (space) industry, a company, a team, and a task. The second path focuses on the continuous improvement of the work activity. The implementation and evaluation of WAVES in a small space system company is the basic contribution to industry. The implementation within systems engineering departments of large space organisations has been prepared. The developed analytical framework contributes a new approach to analyse work activity in practice. Finally, the answers to the first part of the main research question contribute to a better understanding of systems engineering, systems thinking, and its learning in practice. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 286 (11 UL)