China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Systems Engineering and Weapon Systems Acquisition Strategy of the U.S. Department of Defense and National Security
Published in Anna M. Doro-on, Handbook of Systems Engineering and Risk Management in Control Systems, Communication, Space Technology, Missile, Security and Defense Operations, 2023
The preliminary design review (PDR) is held to make sure that the preliminary design and basic system architecture are achieved and that there is technical confidence the capability need can be met within cost and schedule goals. It is a mandatory technical review and completed prior to Milestone B for all MDAPs as prescribed by the DTM 09-027, DoDI 5000.02, 10 U.S.C. § 2366b and PDUSD—AT&L Memorandum, Improving Milestone Process Effectiveness (see ref. PDUSD—AT&L 2011a and Figure 2.14-B). Unless submitted and approved in support of the pre-EMD review, all remaining Milestone B information requirements (including any significant changes to documents following the pre-EMD review) shall be satisfied prior to the milestone (PDUSD—AT&L 2011a). The timing of PDF relative to the pre-EMD review is at the discretion of the DoD component, which must balance the need for more mature design information with the costs and benefits of extending multiple sources’ design activities from the time of PDR until formal Milestone B approval and award of the EMD contract. Milestone B is expected to focus on changes that have occurred since the pre-EMD review as a result of source selection or other program events (PDUSD—AT&L 2011a). Table 2.41 defines the products and associated review criteria. A readiness assessment tool for PDR preparation is the DoD PDR Checklist, see ref. DoD 2015o to access the document.
Specifying Safe, Reliable and Cost-Effective Equipment
Published in Armand A. Lakner, Ronald T. Anderson, Reliability Engineering for Nuclear and Other High Technology Systems, 2017
Conduct periodic reviews during the acquisition of new systems and equipment to evaluate the technical adequacy of the design, approaches to testing and demonstration, reliability performance and other areas of concern. Conduct reviews to evaluate initial or early design progress as well as to evaluate the final design prior to fabrication. Prepare procedures for the conduct of the reviews including detailed checklists that identify the areas to be covered and which are designed to extract maximum information from the review process. Specify requirements for design reviews in procurement documents. Document the results of each design review conducted during the development effort. Each procedure (and checklist) must be tailored and directed toward the specific review to be conducted and the amount of detail which will be available at that time. Design review procedures must contain provisions for effective follow-up of corrective and/or managerial actions which result from the review process. Procedures and checklists should be designed to:
How Do We Test Rockets?
Published in Travis S. Taylor, Introduction to Rocket Science and Engineering, 2017
What does SEP look like, and how does it work? Figure 6.3 is the “standard V model” of systems engineering. It starts at the top of the left side of the V with a “top–down” view and is where the “big picture” is generated. Here is where the idea of the overall architecture for the system begins to take shape. System-level design requirements are defined but at a very top level in the system functional review (SFR). Then, the path of the SEP flows down the leg of the V where individual components’ design requirements are developed in the preliminary design review (PDR). Once the design requirements of the complete system down to the component level are developed, then a critical design review (CDR) is held to make final adjustments to the blueprints before components are built and tested. The nomenclature here is important as any modern rocket scientist or engineer will often be working hard to meet the PDR or CDR deadlines.
Classifying virtual reality-based collaboration environments: practical insights for application in fashion design
Published in International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 2021
Design review is an essential stage in the design collaboration process, where the final result of the collaboration is determined (Fernando, Wu, & Bassanino, 2013). The type of VRCE for design review provides a variety of visuospatial presentation methods that support the workflow of design review by bringing 2D/3D visual materials related to the final product into the virtual collaboration space. The Arthur product allows users to navigate inside and outside of a 3D design object and review its visuospatial aspects in real-time using annotation and sketching tools along with the use of visual resources from their personal library. However, this type is not optimised for the construction or modification of 3D models, such as the aforementioned type of VR for 3D virtual prototyping. In architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC), a design review is conducted with a digital clone of the final product based on VR technology (Zaker & Coloma, 2018). With this VRCE type, designers can present design results to the stakeholders and interact with them at the greater accuracy and the real-world scale of 3D product models during the design review process, which was not possible in traditional 2D teleconferencing environments. The Vizible solution provides lay users with low-code VR tools to build virtual presentations in minimal technique knowledge and invites remote partners in review sessions via email to collaborate on jointly reviewed ideas and final product design results. In a collaborative design project, some participants are unfamiliar with technical fields such as 3D data operation. Accordingly, a VRCE enables people to more intuitively participate in design reviews without the need for a prior knowledge base of 3D CAD systems. Therefore, anyone can intuitively access the tangible frame of design deliverables in a more interactive and immersive way. In this context, a VRCE can be an efficient communication tool that enhances collaborative work awareness among team members or stakeholders. As a result, they can close the gap in understanding designs with other stakeholders. Furthermore, this type of VRCE allows people to depart from the constraints of the traditional decision-making process based on asynchronous behaviours. This makes the convergence process and decision coordination of the design solution more dynamic and flexible (Korsgaard, Picot, Wigand, Welpe, & Assmann, 2009)