92 IRE TRANSAC`TJ0NS ON ENGINEERiNG M-=ANAGEMENT June

3) A brief statement of the specific puirpose for which CONCLUSIONthe nieeting was called or the trip Blade. At the end of the first year of operation we had just

4) Au introduetion containing background iniformation scratched the surface of this challenging assignment;on the project. but while organizing and growing, we had produced tangi-

h) A discussion detailing the technical contenit of the ble results. The output of the engineering departmentmeeting, and providing adequate support for all during the first year was a preliminary six-volume 1400-conielusions reached or recommendations made. page report covering Requirements Analysis, SystemsSupport was considered -to be the presentation of Design, Recommendations for the "Buy" Program, andresults of experiments or the reportiing of operational Recommendations for the R & D Program. These reportsexperience by persons considered to be reliable and are considered to be the product of the mainstream effort,knowledgeable irn theitr fields, amplified, if appropri- and will be revised and updated periodically. In addition,ate, by the observationis or knowledge of the engineer the results of staff studies have been issued in 14 specialresponsible for the report. Operationi practices, reports, ranging fronm a survey of rocket relay techniquesprinciples and techniques, as well as items amnenable to an exhaustive treatment of data transmission. Theseto m-1ore rigorou.s an--d sophistica-ted mnathematicalI beginnings were crowned with some success and a grati-or physical proof, were included. fying responise on: the part of the Air Force, the team

6) A ftinal section sumarized t;he diseussion and sub- mnembers, and subconitractors, without whose assistance wemuitted reco)Ininen(laltion-s. Post-meeting econc(lusiolns could not have met the rigorou-s schedules that wererelative to engineering areas were also to be included necessary to keep AIRCOM in step with other weapolnsin thlis section, which nioted ebainges in task direction systeins developnients.or scope thai iav have resublted from the trip ormYieeting. IREFERENCES

L1X C. F. Horne, "A practical approach toward initegration ofproject and-d group theories in establishing an engineering

These reports reczeived wide distribtution throughouit organization," IRE TRANS. ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT,ICS withinl t.he engineering (lepartimet ad at otier vol. EM-3, pp. 22-33; March, 1955.[2] G. J. Strickroth, "Weapons svstems maniagement, 'e IREappropriate (lepartmental levels. Copies were also dis- TRANS. ON ENGINEERING MAINAGEMENT, vol EM-4, Ip. 1 3;tributed to team. members. In general, if subjective cO1l- March, 957- pr E s-H. MI. Bowie, '*The project overlav system of research organiza-siderationls or edito:riaDl cotnnmrlenl t. ceArc) ne essary, these tions, IRE TRANS. ON ENGIN-EERING MVANAGEMENT, VOl.

mrpsle:] prtIemoranllduml ha less ,EM-4, pp. 105-108; September, 1957.w4] paoode-Maehol, 'Control Svstem Engineering,' IMcGraw-Hill

widespread (listribution Bolok Co., Inc., New York, N Y.; 1957.

The "8Core Concept' of Systems Management*J AfMES DI. Me1L:1,EANt. SENIOR MEMBER. IRE

Summary Some deficiencies in the practice of systems manage- to discuss some additiolnal deficiencies ini the systemsment, and the need for an "architect" in addition to the contractor Mianagement approach, and ouitline General Dynamicsare presented. The "core concept" is described. Several advantages E . , . c .of this approach are indicated and its separation from hardware Electronics solution; the core concept. We believe indesign and fabrication are stressed. the core concept of systems managemeent. We have backed

that belief with positive action.HAVE loing been- a stro(ng advocate of team conitract- The weaponi system concept provided a mechanisrniniig and management. Some time ago, I discuissed for the customer to hire a general contractor to hanidlethe teai approach (the use of the best talents of all the developmenit and procuremient of the many constit-

invxolvred cont,racetors, as opposed to thle classical prime nenlts of a syrstem. MIany of the airframne companiescontractoZtr-subcont:ractor approach). Now I woulld like were <successful general con-tract,ors. Today, however, the

customer realizes that he nleeds not only a general con-tractor, but perhaps more important, he nleeds an

* Reeived by tJhe POEM,-I November, 1960. B3ased on1 a paper ar:chitect. The aIrchitect provrides the integrated systemspresented at lthe National E8lectronlics Conlference, Chicago?, Ill1October, 196().1 conlcept for all parts of the systemn: the airframne, the

1 J- D.MLeYan,rl(roupecotntrnacctsinng,"IhRYETlRA\NS.ON ENGINEER electronics, and the hydraulic system. The architect alsoING MANAG1EMENT, vol. EM-68 pp. 71175; September, 19359. provides the design of the organization required to

1961 McLean: The Core Concept of Systems Management 93

obtain and integrate the systems on time and within guarantee profitability to the contractor, as well as valuebudgets. Today the systems manager must combine received to the customer. We call our solution the "coretechnical, fiscal, and administrative management. concept."

In the past few years there have been a number of The core concept, in its simplest terms, involves thesystems management contracts let by the military in the establishment of a nucleus of technical, fiscal, and ad-hope of simultaneously satisfying its management short- ministrative personnel whose services are drawn as neededage and of taking advantage of the latest technological to any of a number of systems management projects.developments. Systems management, however, has de- This concept is in some respects an extension of that usedveloped the reputation of costing too much. This high on 480L, with several important modifications. For costcost is in part real, and in part illusion. Systems manage- reduction, our "core" supports the maximum number ofment has been, in itself, expensive. However, other systems management programs. In addition, we alsoengineering activities have all too often been included apply this core concept both to the technical and to thewithin the systems management costs, making the ap- business side of the house. Specialists in contracts, costpearance even worse than the fact. The customer has control, scheduling, and planning are available on anbeen dissatisfied. We in industry should also be dissatis- "as needed" basis from the core group, as are technicalfied. We must recognize that in systems management we specialists. This core should not be confused with theare providing a service. The cost of this service must "pool" of personnel often maintained from which projectbe a separate item. The price must be in line with the staffs are pulled. The core group supports systems pro-quality and quantity of the service rendered. grams throughout their life span.

In commercial business we are guided by what the In the past each new systems job award to an organiza-customer, the public, wants and can afford. Defense tion was spun off as a single self-contained group. Thisbusiness is no different. It all comes back to the question group was forcibly fitted into a basic engineeringof dollars. If the value of systems management is not organization, often an organization geared to "black-box"commensurate with the cost, no other combinations of development. Our new core concept integrates all systemvirtues can ever make it succeed as a way of doing business. business in order to manage it as it deserves, with anOur customer is in the process of re-evaluating these organization geared to the needs of the customer.costs right now. We feel that the R&D phase of this The core concept minimizes the problems inherent intechnique is completed. Now is the time to apply value the conventional systems management approach. Theengineering in order to produce a marketable commodity: necessary flexibility is built in; the special talents, humansystems management. factors; reliability, logistics, and so forth are on hand theWe at General Dynamics/Electronics have been deeply first day of the program. Most important, the procedures

concerned with this aspect of systems management. I for control of cost and schedules are tailored exclusivelywould like to describe what we have done about this. to the systems management business. Thus, all such pro-There are four major points I would like to make: 1) we grams are brought under the control of a single depart-believe this service can be effective and profitable; 2) we ment. This department supplies, on an "as needed" basis,realize that the true function of systems management is to those technical and business specialists required forprovide a service to the customer, and not, as it often individual programs. We can now carry full-time special-turns out, to act as a marketing organization for a group ists in order to gain their availability for part-time re-of co-contractors; 3) in order to perform management quirements by integrating those men into the managementservices for the customer, a systems management group core of the Systems Department.must be impartial, unbiased, and equitable; 4) systems Aside from efficient personnel utilization, this employ-management structure must be configured to utilize ment of a core of specialized business and technicaleffectively the resources and quick reaction capabilities personnel has another important advantage. These peopleof small business. are available from the very beginning of the systems effort.The glamour surrounding systems management has There is no gap between contract award and full staffing

completely evaporated. Nevertheless, its inherent ad- of the systems management group. As a consequence,vantages remain. It is fully capable of forming and de- programs get off the ground faster and fly higher andveloping a substantial technical team in a wide range of farther.diverse areas. It offers an inherent reduction in the length In addition to the conception and implementation ofand tedium of the learning cycle. It is capable of inte- the core idea in our Systems Management Department,grating the special talents of small businesses, and of we have placed heavy emphasis on certain basic manage-backing these talents by resources and facilities equal to ment principles. Our first ground rule is that of undividedthat of a large corporation. responsibility. We configure our management structureTo reduce the costs while maintaining systems manage- to include both technical and business responsibilities

ment as a profitable technique for our customers, we have under the program manager. We do not indulge in thedeveloped alternative techniques and procedures to expensive technique of divided technical and fiscal re-provide the innovations necessary to achieve a more sponsibility typical of some of the major missile programs.worthwhile product. We are sure that these efforts will The second of our ground rules is based upon divorcing

94 IRE TRAN$A CTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMEN,T Iutnesystems management fromii hardware design and fabrica- and provides the necessary principles of operation:tion. In order to maintain the impartial, tnbiased position undivided responsibility,of ouir systems management fun ct ion, hardware designi i u s t, . . * - 1 e 1 l~~~scpempartial, uiibiased serv-ice to the customer, aiid.11n1d fabricatioi- art} specilfically exempted from thescpand fabrication arepeciicalyeempeexercise of control over qualitv, cost, and scheduile.of that group. Our systemls mnanagemenit is managemrent,pure aand simple, a service for our cutstomer and not a In addition, the core concept is a prime product of thisfunn:iiel for our engineering and ma,tnufacturing groups. management-engineering approach. Like any well-eiigi-

Third, conisonanit with our b-basis of unidivided responsi- neered product, it is designed to match the customer'si)ility, we define the function of systems nmanagemenit as need; it sells at a fair price, and it returns a fair profitestcablishing and maintaining control over cost, schedule, to the seller.aind quality. IFunctions niot (lirectly appropriate to these In conlelusioll, we believe systems nmaniagement is anthree objectives simply (1o not, belonig in-Ca systens manage- economic necessity in today's procurement environment.nient group. 'We recognize that, on a value-received basis, it has not

I spoke earlier in stronig termis about outr personnel yet become a truly mar:ketable commodity. We submitresouirces. We all krnow that good people can be buried by that the fault lies in the cost rather than the work ofain ineffective clumsy organizationi. An effecti?e organiza- systems management. We have acted to reduce costs bytion, on the other hand, is a high-gainl, low-distortiont implementation of the core concept.amplifier of inidivi(dual talent and skill. We believe that We back otur conrfidence in the concept anid in our ie-our inew systerns management designi has achieved an sources by offering systems management to our customerorganization ideally geared to the needs of the customer on a fixed-price basis.

Some Criticisms of Systems Management*H. T. NEALt

Summary- -.As we began to evolve large integrated military also applicable to systems management for other Lranchessystems for the missile age in the early 1950's, it became apparent of the Armed Forces.that two arts had to develop simultaneously: one was that of develop- In 1950 and 1951, the "prime Contractor" or "primeing a body of knowledge for designing large interdependent systems(systems engineering), and the other was that of developing mana- responsibility" system concept was evolved and initiatedgerial tools for controlling the business aspects of such systems to satisfy the needs of the Air F'orce. Before any anialysisdevelopments (systems management). The problem was not of this concept is made, a quick review should be madeautomatically solved when, for example, the Air Force turned over of this system concept as it was originally conceived andto individual contractors the responsibility for entire systems. Itwas hoped that this line of action would insure the integration of of the purposes for which it was intended.all elements of each system, simplify fund justification, minimize After World War II there was a reduction in federalcosts, and guarantee operational readiness. Industry accepted this spending for defense purposes. During this period theresystem philosophy. Unfortunately, from the management point of was inuch contemplation and discussion of the equipmentview we have not solved the problems of developing the tools neces- problems faced during the war period. One of the mostsary to control systems projects so that delivery schedules and . .financial objectives could be met. During the 1960's some of the critical problems was the lack of usable electronic equip-elements of system integration control will swing back to govern- ment available when aircraft were in a fly-away condition.ment because industry has muffed the chance of a generation. As corrective ideas began to form into a pattern, the

Korean conflict erupted. This inijected the serun ofWHY THE SYSTEM CONCEIPT? necessity into the development and production program

(O INCE the ant hor's experience has beein mostlv with for military gear.Air Force svste ins, this discussion will be largely Durilng the late 1940's some development projects wereAir Force systems,th{ihs disculssion Will be largely.L . ... i completed on airborne electronic gear. Most of this equip-diecedthre athuh uc o te riics ment had been unlder development at the end of WVorld

WTar II and the cultback in funds after the war delayed its* Received by the? PGEM, Novemlber, 1960. Based on a paper completion.

presensted at the Nati. Electronlics Coalf., Chicago, 111.. October,1960. Inl the late 1940's, when this electronic equipment wrasfrt eArCEElectaronics Dgitv.,ACt-sce,In)diustiroiels,(i)aramulls,riN. (-+ inlstalled inl the aircraft, some real problems in its design

Chicago,1ll.beaeparlt