Calibrated System Simulations (CSS)-The Next Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy and Defense Industries

Let me first define my terms before justifying my competitive claims. "Simulation," includes CFD (computation fluid dynamics), dynamics, linear and non-linear, FEA (finite element analysis) with H-element or P-element based technology, finite difference versus finite element, digital timing simulations, EMI simulations, and plasma physics. Whatever tool of choice your department or company employs, they are all used herein and lumped into this generic term called "simulation.". Simulations attempt to represent the real world in a digital form. What I mean by calibrated system simulation (CSS) shall be defined by the words themselves. "Calibrated," means the use of accurate test data, periodically needed, which correlates to the simulation. "System," is relative to the deliverable product of the company. Components, subsystems and systems are terms relative to the company's product line. If you are a satellite integrator, or a defense subcontractor, responsible for the radar subsystem, the end product will drastically change the boundaries drawn between systems, subsystems, and components. An avionics company considers its box or boxes a system.?However, from an aircraft integrator’s (e.g. Boeing or Airbus) perspective, and their internal processes, the boxes are components, like a processor chip, to be plugged into another next higher assembly, subsystem, or system.?“System,” used herein, refers to not just a product or boundary but a stretching of the status quo in the engineering organizations to reach the next level of analysis beyond which it has grown accustomed.? Model-based systems engineering (MBSE), Digital Thread Projects, Digital Organizational Work Flow, Agile, Scrum, and LEAN systems all converging as force multipliers.

Many will refer to the old saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”?It’s my hope that this article presents a supporting argument to the old saying that is commonly understood in Silicon Valley as the, “Adapt or perish,” paradigm.?More brutally stated, “change or die,” as companies compete in a broader and broader field of competition with new entrants, or disruptors, causing sea changes in the status quo.

Using the term "simulation," as the subject matter, also keeps engineers, from all disciplines, mechanical, chemical, electrical, ..etc... included in this conversation, and thereby, prevents getting bogged down into the details and specific limitations of the tools themselves which are ever-expanding.?I’ve worked with many of these tools over many regimes, environments, and industries and understand a few in-depth.?However, for this article, I want to allow non-technical VPs and Managers to follow the general vision and thought processes along with the technical staff. Therefore, we shall avoid discussion, herein, of the engines (e.g. problem solvers) and defer to those Phd’s and companies who make a living in those areas of focus.

In general, what we all (as engineers) are trying to do for our employers and ourselves, is to simulate reality in digital form. Gaming companies call this “Creating Worlds.” In engineering, we have static and dynamic stress worlds, thermal and CFD worlds, electronic worlds, chemical processing worlds, and so on. I've only seen one company harness the power of Calibrated System Simulations, in my career, but even then, they were at the beginning stages of this concept and had miles to go with benefits limitless in nature.

Another framework, I must set down, in the mind of the reader, is that we must change our thinking from the old, "documentation," thinking to the digital data or information form of thinking. I will reference, Bill Gates' book, The Speed of Thought," (a boring book, according to most critics, but filled with bullet lists of thought-provoking concepts) as a starting place for readers to start grasping how thinking in terms of paper documents, severely limits our ability to grasp the realization and potential of CSS.?In short, we have a long way in understanding the potential of the digital worlds we may create currently and in the future.?

The research fields of Linguistics and Neurosciences have become more and more aware of this connection between language and our thought processes. I would defer the reader to this area of research to discover interesting concepts about the language-brain connection that are just coming to light, as a result of PET (positron emission tomography) scan studies.?Readers who enjoy a more entertaining analogy of grasping this language-brain connection may find the movie, “Arrival,” (2016) informative.?It outlines the ability of the mind to map new neural pathways by understanding a 3-dimensional language from an alien race.??Science fiction, yes, but supported by some science.?In linguistics, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that there are certain thoughts of an individual in one language that cannot be understood by those who live in another language. The hypothesis also states that the way people think is strongly affected by their native languages.

Historically, in the beginning, and even currently in many organizations, the computer age focused on translating paper documentation processes into digital ones without rethinking the entire process itself.?Many of those systems have become entrenched in our modern organizations.?Ironically, these digital systems have become so entrenched, they have become irremovable and often difficult to change, thereby, destining their companies and departments into obsolescence.??Also, I must further add, that for the purposes of this discussion, it helps to think of engineering as a process or system of processes working together for a common set of outcomes, the most important of which is creativity. Discovery usually comes after a deeper understanding of the physical world.? Engineering is NOT merely work breakdowns structures (WBS) of varying tasks in a project schedule. WBS is so often entrenched in our defense organizations.?A result of accounting "charge number," tracking requirements.?Work breakdown structures kill ingenuity and creativity.?They were never meant to foster ingenuity and creativity, but rather, to enhance production, schedules, and budgets.? Cost and schedule prediction and performance are very important, however, I say that the biggest cost and schedule improvements will come from process changes and changes in how we view our workflows.

I’m not saying we should throw budgets and planning to the wind; however, I am saying we did lose something when we began to micro-manage engineering per some master formula of best practices.?Most of those best practices were based on old paradigms of paper documentation systems and processes.?I believe in best practices.?However, best practices only come after finding the optimum processes. “Best practices,” should not be used as shackles to engineering creativity but continually brought under review for improvement.

Also, I want to encourage management MBA types to completely reject the quarterly bean counter mentality entrenchment that has been taught and practiced by management schools since the East Indian Trading Company was formed in 1600.?Instead, I implore the budget-minded reader to accept that “by finding the optimum process, we will also find the optimum economic balance of. “better, faster and cheaper.”??

Historically better, faster and cheaper, has been governed by faster and cheaper, NOT, always better. For example, I had one VP tell me that faster and cheaper is better. Anyone, who owns a car, is still waiting for the cheaper and better part of this false equation to show up in the auto products we buy today.?We can find cheaper and faster products but are they always better??New technology is always buggy and it’s become acceptable that we, as consumers, should tolerate this bugginess of new technology of our personal devices.?

What engineering departments are forced to do, because of executive management pressures, is pass the risk-off to the customer’s wallet before the product is completely characterized in the lab or by simulation.?This is a brilliant marketing strategy that has worked created billions of dollars and millions of jobs. However, it's not sustainable. Product time to market has been the objective for years.?I propose that the fastest time to market will be a result of finding the optimum process and to find the optimum process we need CSS.?It is true that not everything, yet, can be simulated digitally.?I hold that we can do much, much, much better than we are.?Many companies are using a degree of CSS but few, if any, have realized, yet acknowledged the benefit of fully developed CSS processes.

I hold, that a focus and drive, for the better, relative to the end-user experience, is the optimum goal. I cite accomplishments by Apple and Steve Jobs as an example. Every company wants to be an Apple clone. As the old saying goes by, Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Who else, has done that better than Apple??Napster to Itunes, Palm to iPhone.?Few companies have built a better mousetrap better than Apple. There are others who have followed the same philosophy and succeeded while others have failed.

Furthermore, I would also like to dispel inherent biases relative to quantity or volume production versus, DoD or startup companies, which sell their prototypes. I will defend that finding the optimum process is good for both, and further claim that finding the optimum process is required before prototyping or increasing production. Finding the optimum process represents the fastest and cheapest path forward with the highest quality. If you doubt my claims, please research the new aerospace companies on the scene, like Blue Origin, Aevum, and SpaceX, just to name the most notarized in the US.

There are plenty of others not mentioned, especially when you consider other startups in incubation, with capital funding, that we just don't know about. Furthermore, if we consider a worldwide global economy, we should consider an organically fostered aerospace industry being cultivated by the governments of India, Korea and Singapore, not to mention, China, N. Korea, Russia and Iran which are not hindered by legacy approaches, processes and procedures like we are in America. These new companies and industries are rewriting how engineering processes are done with a white slate.?No legacy holdbacks. And, doing so with greater speed than our original aerospace companies were historically and currently able to do.

Additionally, we also need to divorce ourselves from the new wave in Agile-Scrum.?CSS, for this discussion, has nothing to do with Agile-Scrum industry initiatives.?However, once CSS is realized, I can envision that an Agile-Scrum process could be overplayed, on top of CSS, without sacrificing engineering creativity and optimization.?However, in my opinion, starting with Agile-Scrum would be a misapplication and will hinder CSS improvements over time.?In my opinion, Agile Scrum, in many cases, and contrary to its original purpose of process improvement, has become another bad implementation of a good idea.?In the end, it’s morphed into another whipping tool for management to beat up on engineers to just do the same old thing, faster and NOT always better.?A few companies have implemented LEAN, Agile, and Scrum (LAS) as it was intended. Long before a process becomes Agile-Scrum capable, the fundamental process must change.?We must make our organizational processes more flexible and not less.? Flexible to change with the unpredictability of new technology developments and an unexpected sea changes in our industries.

Currently, many companies are scrambling to adjust to “Model-Based Engineering,” (MBE) and implementing initiatives called, “The Digital Thread,” in order to comply with MIL-STD-31000B, DoD Technical Data Packages.?This standard now allows the displacement of detailed dimensioned 2D drawings with detailed 3D models thereby freeing up engineers from creating obsoleted 2D drawings.?For decades, CNC programmers and suppliers have been working with 3D model data, and 2D drawings have been obsolete, in my estimation, for a long, long time.?In fact, parts can be made with a 3D STeP or Parasolid file without any 2D drawing and it’s been that way for decades.?The only people that needed 2D detailed fully dimensioned drawings were lawyers for intellectual property court cases.?Now legal battles can be addressed with data files and checksum values and 3D model comparitor algorythms.?Millions of engineering hours will be devoted to this 2D to 3D change but in the end, it will only help to catch up to technology and by the time we catch up we will be behind by decades because we placed our time and energy on the wrong priorities.?I wonder if our enemies are as foolish??What progress in CSS could we make with all those engineering hours invested correctly?

Finally, I will dissuade readers from categorizing this concept as some LEAN, QA, QC, CPI production and quality improvement program that has been beaten to death since its first inception by W. Edward Deming's famous 14 points and 7 deadly diseases published in the 50's, 70's and 80's. All of the great and touted Japanese product quality improvements, since the 50's have been based on America's, homegrown works of Edward Deming. In fact, Walter Shewhart, before Deming, completed some the same statistical theories in the 40's and 50's. The Japanese just listened better than we did in the USA. With all due respect to our Defense Departments and service branches, I will say that the idea of CSS is not new and is already being "implemented and practiced" in China and Russia. How do I know? My reading, and experience working with US and Non-US engineers from Russia, India, Germany, France, China, Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada and even Mexico, have led me to believe, that other countries have taken the shortcut to Calibrated System Simulations.

China decided not to route wires for their telecom system but jumped right to cellular networks based on US technology.?They stood on the shoulders of their enemies.?As such, they abandoned the overhead of maintaining wired networks and diverted that money to their wireless networks.?Such is the case with CSS.?Besides, it is widely known that China has 2 of the 3 fastest supercomputers in the world. At our own fault, the US defense industry, and the government agencies overseeing them, have remained entrenched in the traditional approaches of paper documentation and its processes which have limited the growth of CSS and reaching its full potential.

Now that we have dispelled some preconceived notions, or at least, provided some starting context for the reader to open their minds, shed old thinking, and exercise new neural networks in their brains, we can begin with some examples. These are advanced examples both widely known in the literature. What I mean by advanced, is that the project, company or country, is on the right hand side relative to the center portion of the statistical bell curve. I'm referring to those situations or occasions where CSS, are leading the pack in their respective industry, economy, or country. Let's not be so arrogant, in our thinking, to believe, the US has the lead in all areas for everything. We must accept, that some countries, like the Russia of old, who beat us to space in the 60s, may be beating us again in other areas. Nevertheless, I believe, with the team spirit and diversity, unique to the US, we have a choice of zooming ahead again. It's a matter of two things.?Firstly, awareness, which this article hopes to clarify.?Secondly, national will, like our original goal of putting a man on the moon and returning them home safely within the decade," once was.

The simplest and most widely known CSS’s are those used for atomic bomb yields and residual radiation.?Politically disallowed by treaty, even underground testing has been banned and computer simulation is often faster, cheaper, and better than conducting a test.?Laurence Livermore labs have published many papers on this subject and there is a race between countries to achieve “clean,” tactical nuclear weaponry.?After all, why bomb a place if you can’t occupy it for 10,000 years.?It seems pointless now but someday, clean tactical weapons will be a reality, mostly because of digital simulations, calibrated by smaller testing programs.?Personally, I would rather see the US reach this achievement before other nation states.

Another example, from the electronics industry may be cited.?We all understand that electronic power densities for integrated circuits (ICs) have climbed higher than they have ever been in history.?You can find some charts that will claim the power flux on a silicon device is equivalent to or higher than that of a nuclear explosion.?As a result, thermal management systems have reached a need for critical analyses that can handle conduction, convection, radiation, and chemical cooling as well as liquid and air CFD analyses.?Historically, many traditional thermal departments have decoupled the fluid momentum equations from the energy equations into two distinct simulations.?This was considered to provide a more accurate and conservative maximum junction temperature but my position is that with CSS you can achieve the same accuracy and gain the value of having a single system simulation that allows the user and customer to run more what-if scenarios in a shorter cycle time, with greater accuracy and more confidence, thereby, accelerating the learning curve of the technology resulting in a turn-key, plug and chug, process.?This thereby allows engineers to move on to greater challenges or set up another CSS process and allows the organization to design to more cost effective and appropriate margins.

Historically until about the late 1980’s engineers had to share computing resources or scale down simulation sizes to accommodate shared digital resources.?Engineers did this by simplification, and the use of theoretical or empirical correlations.?This proved to be effective but with each level of simplification came an accommodating margin of error that had to be added to the final simulation results.?

In my experience, it is possible to build a more sophisticated system model that is more accurate than the historical simulations.?Currently, there is a computer on every engineer’s desk with advanced user-friendly software, 32GBs of RAM, and 1TB of disk storage, we have the advantage of setting up experimental simulations on our laptops (formerly we did this with desktops, workstations, and supercomputer or servers) which yielded results as accurate as a wind tunnel test or matched thermal couple testing to within acceptable limits.

Let’s remember, it’s not always accuracy we are chasing.?One recent engineering graduate with a master’s degree stated that we needed a thermal liquid-cooled module simulation to be accurate within 1 degree C.?I stated that is not quite true.?I explained that what we really needed was a simulation we trusted and which provided us, with confidence, adequate or inadequate margins. And thereby, would allow us to adjust our design before design release dates were upon us.?“Known Good Results,” is a term that is key to our simulations.?To achieve the needed confidence, we need frequent and regular testing of our products.?

As a starting point for a CSS program, I encourage that all new electronics go through a thermal characterization testing program, at least at room temperature. Once a database of results and a matching management and control process, for test results and simulations, is established, then only new major configurations will need to be tested, while minor changes will be predictable from simulations, once the database and processes are established.?You can see that this type of rigorous calibrated testing program can be costly, on the surface.?However, as a new board or component is placed in an already calibrated simulation, for next-generation products, we can imagine the payback being very profitable.?We can see potential negative margins would be observed sooner and realistic margins would be achieved, thereby allowing earlier correction in the development process than would not otherwise be realized.

I always talk about building simulations that are, “realistically conservative,” and not overly conservative or too aggressive (optimistic).?Again, in days past we had margins in our temperatures and we added more margin or fudge factors for unknowns.?

Today, we have reached a point where too much margin may price a company’s products out of the bidding war and/or cost the company profits that could be reinvested back into research.?The prudent application of margins is quickly turning into a statistical exercise in chaos theory.?How much is too much or too little margin??What variances in production can we expect??What variances in raw materials should we expect and can we control them??How often should parts be replaced to keep jets flying??What kind of warranty should we offer for a part or subsystem??What is the system reliability??I leave these discussions up to the mathematicians, statisticians, production engineers, and supply chain managers. However, whatever margins your organization establishes for whatever reasons, should be considered as the cost target.?Too much margin, costs more than needed.?Too little margin result in the cost of failure.

Furthermore, we seldom control the accuracy of the number crunching engine (e.g. Nastran, Fluent, Abaqus etc..).?Those are controlled by PhD’s far above the average engineer’s skill level and ingenuity. However, I do know that even these engines have some margin built into them for mathematical computation errors and variances.?The engines (solvers) have been proved over time and testing.?However, the inputs we choose to use for these engines is what most engineers can control.?The dance engineers make is exercising judgment relative to schedule, cost, performance and reliability (e.g. Quality) constraints.?So, how does an analysis group/department manager ensure that his engineers are following a prudent set of assumptions and not overly conservative or too aggressive??The answer lies in a cultural change and thinking in terms of engineering processes.

The truth is that I’m not sure that it’s possible to change existing engineering departments at large corporations and aerospace companies.?I’ve tried over the years with justifications and calculations and analyses falling on deaf ears.?Partly because I’ve been a contractor and no one listens to contractors, and, partly because of the inertia that has been established by legacy procedures and expectations, of engineering departments, from its internal and external customers. In short, executive management has been governed by quarterly bean counter mentality versus technical tactical and strategic thinking.

That is why I am excited to see new commercial players coming into the aerospace industry as disrupters to the status quo.?It’s not, in most engineers’ nature, to fight for a cause, but rather, we just prefer to go along with the existing process and documentation, after all, internal and external customers just want an answer.?They really don’t care much about how you get to it.?This approach inherently will result in random errors and failures since no optimum process has been developed and thereby allowing variances from engineer to engineer.?

The other disrupters facing the aerospace and hi-tech industries are the global economy. How do we compete with a communist country that does not have to pay free market labor rates for engineering resources??How do we compete with organizations around the world that are NOT hindered by legacy documentation systems??However, the sad truth is that engineering compensation, in this country, has not matched the cost of living increases for about 30 years.?As a result, where is the incentive for students to major in engineering in college??There are easier majors that allow as much compensation as engineering.?So, why not take the easier road??Not to mention that with the liberal arts requirements of 60 units or more, to graduate, it takes engineers 5-6 years to graduate over the 3-4 years it took our grandfathers to graduate from the same engineering curriculum without liberal arts requirements.?During the industrial revolution, engineers were the highest paid professionals above lawyers and doctors.?Not so much these days.?However, I believe competitive pressures will bring back equity sooner rather than later.

I understand the pro/con arguments of graduating well-rounded engineers in society.?I’m just saying that the incentive for engineering has somewhat decreased since the compensation curve has not kept up with the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) cost of living percent increases over the last 30 years.?I encourage all engineers to match their salaries with this SSA’s table of living adjustments and figure out what they should be making, just to keep up with inflation, versus what they are making.?Corporations and governments have worked together very hard, to cost control engineering compensation in this country.?That is a detailed topic for another time.?In short, if you are working as an engineer, you love it because of the work and not because of the money.?That’s where I am as well.?I love engineering and working with engineers.?They, by far, are the best kind of big hearted people anyone will ever work with.?At the core, I believe engineers are truth seekers and that’s what drives them to find answers.

However, engineers get bored doing the same thing over, and over again, like a robot.?In fact, the millennial engineering generation, I believe, is misunderstood.?Being a father of two millennials, I’ve spent time studying this group of new and bright minds.?If you understand one thing about the millennial generation, you can understand how to motivate them.?Simply put, they merely put a higher value on their free time and are not as inclined to work OT as their fathers and grandfathers before them.?I consider this an asset that can be leveraged.?They often find faster and newer ways to do the same old processes.?And they are less willing to tolerate mindless repetition that can be automated with spreadsheets, macros or software scripts.?However, being caught in the limiting aspect of paper and documentation processes they are merely restricted to accelerating an obsolete set of processes and not allowed to re-invent or start from a blank whiteboard.?We should be unleashing them rather than indoctrinating them into the old processes.

I believe that today’s America, in its current field of global competition really need a fundamental change in engineering processes for commercial and defense purposes.?Some may refer to this as the MBE (model based engineering) or the Digital Thread.?These initiatives merely look to convert processes away from the almost uselessness of detailed dimensioned drawings in todays modern computer age.?However, in the end, they only help companies catching up, not reinvent.?Drawings are one process that has been outdated since the 90’s. Once the conversion to 3D from 2D is completed by a company or organization, they are still going to be behind in all the other key processes especially CSS’s, where I believe the core benefit lies.

I am NOT saying that CSS will be a zero-overhead cost of transformation.?In fact, there is a cost of change.?However, most of that cost is overcoming the inertia of internally entrenched systems.?I am saying that it must be viewed as an investment with a payback period.?If it were my choice, I would start up an entirely new engineering team as a separate division, or startup company, and let the engineers work the details out by selecting a challenging simulation to establish a CSS set of samples.?From one success, create multiple successes.?Before long, the new engineering group could supplant, or be re-integrated into the legacy engineering department.?This may be the least disruptive to ongoing contract awards and allow higher velocities toward change.?Again, if the quarterly bean counter thinking prevails, this will never happen.

Additionally, the historically clear distinctive line between, thermal, CFD, static stress, dynamics analysts have become more blurred in recent years.?Consider the hypersonic space plane project which has been on the “drawing boards,” and under analysis, since before I graduated from college.?The biggest issue with hypersonic aircraft is the heat generated on the surface of the aircraft skin.?It gets so hot that temperatures can exceed the melting temperatures of traditional aluminum and softens titanium to a difficult level of structural integrity.?Here we have a CFD, thermal and structural problem all combined into one product.?I’m seeing more and more of these kinds of conjugate analysis simulation challenges.?Currently, we use a string of simulations to get to a final answer.?However, we’ll be merging these types of mega-sims into fewer and fewer simulations thereby reducing margins, cost and accelerating our understanding of the hypersonic world.?

Another case in point, which I’ve recently experienced, is that for a human spacecraft, like the Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner, there are 7000+ load cases during the entire mission, from assembly to landing and recovery, that must be considered and evaluated.?In the Apollo days, there was only a fraction of that which could be considered, and they were captured as part of a “loads document,” or “loads book.”?Now, these loads are part of a simulation code that can digitally exercise a part or subsystem through the entire set of mission loads and determine where the highest stresses occur.?Again, here, we’ve moved from a paper system and created a digital system based on paper and expanded it.?A very good start, by far, since the digital processes are easier to control and likely have minimized human error over mountains of hand calculations.

It’s also hard to calibrate a system to something that’s never been built before.?Nevertheless, we have history from the Mercury and Apollo programs that have been leveraged to some degree, not to mention experience from the International Space Station (ISS) and international space agencies.?However, the real question here is if our capabilities have risen to the level of ensuring human flight safety, or, have we merely, shortened, but continued the processes employed during our two shuttle disasters??Will there be another lost crew disaster??This is the question which most concerns the author.

Another case, in point, simulating LEO orbital drag is not possible to simulate by experiment on earth, the plasma field we experience at the edge of our atmosphere is difficult to simulate in density and composition.?Ions and atomic oxygen broken down by ultra-violet radiation from the sun is only addressed with digital world simulations of the LEO environment and actual test data from sensors on the ISS and LEO satellites.

Another experience, I’ll reflect on, involved a thermal solution of a liquid-cooled set of boards.?The practice of this engineering department was to separate the momentum and energy equations into two separate simulations and then merge them after the fact with each being built by different engineers in different periods of time.?This did not work very well.?I believe that the two simulations needed to be created from scratch with merging in mind from the beginning and the engineers involved coordinated as a team.?It was a combination of limits of the tool but mostly limits of the operators of the tools.?This brings up another hurdle.?Many engineering departments do not reach a level of expertise on a simulation tool equal to the application engineers of the software companies that create the tool, unless you get years of practice.?The analogy is like CAD systems.?To get to know the real ins and outs of a CAD tool, you need to use it daily for months on end and sometimes years.?

When it comes to analysis tools, many engineering departments have occasional usage of the tools and engineers move on and off from those tools periodically, rarely getting the expertise needed to maximize the utility of the tool.?Often engineering departments don’t have a full-time need for the analysis tool but only occasionally need it.?Occasional usage and operator expertise with a tool are often the case in smaller companies but also can occur in larger companies depending on the variety of products the department manages.?Occasional or casual usage and operator expertise are a hurdles to be managed for a CSS environment to flourish.

The engineering manager’s challenge in current times and future markets, is to keep the work flowing while modifying and improving engineering tools and processes and personnel.?No small juggling feat, even with upper management support, and near impossible, with budget and schedule pressures getting smaller and shorter, respectively.

Now that we’ve discussed the samples of CSS and provided a general outline that will be customizable by company, industry, and product, let’s look at the real profitable benefit to the organization.?I am not an accountant nor have I worked as an executive.?However, I have reported to several over the years and been in the office of a couple of CEOs relevant to some technical challenges that affected the bottom line of the company.

Let’s assume that an organization has achieved a CSS engineering level of practice and the organization has already developed processes and procedures to confidently predict results with realistic margins of safety for operating parameters.?What could the overall cost savings be, and, are there potential for revenue increases?

Cost savings are enumerable and outlined in prior paragraphs above.?In short, more reliable margins and discovering problems sooner in the development cycle are obvious cost savings and company managers and executives can calculate cost savings readily.?However, is there a revenue generating aspect to achieving this level of technical performance??I believe there is.

Let’s take the analogy of a one company generating a new component that is used by one of its customers that is developing a system.?This situation could be a DoD or commercial supply chain situation.?The component company could provide new device parameters to the system customer and the customer could provide CSS results for those parameters before the component company invests on developing the part.?Also, in reverse order, the system provider could specify component parameters to the component company knowing that if the component company could make the part, it would work in their systems before designs are even started.?As a result, speed of co-development efforts in the supply chain becomes revenue-generating for those in the supply chain.?When considering competing supply chains such as competitions between defense contractor teams, this can and had made a difference in billion-dollar awards.?

Consider, if your company is a subsystem company that can NOT provide quick feedback on the component’s parameters. Is your company part of the leading edge supply team influencing new technology or will your company be one who will have to change your entire system to accommodate a new component because it’s not fully CSS capable??CSS can be a competitive advance in run off competitions like the F22 versus the F23.?F22 beat the flight performance of the F23, why did the F23 team miss the mark and how could this be prevented in the future?

Now let’s consider the last-minute realization that a part did not come in per the pre-released or released specification stated.?How fast can the organization correct and modify the system to accommodate the deficient part??It’s not always about finding a replacement part, especially in the space flight business where often there are custom parts specific to specific missions and one supplier.

In short, what if engineering became more than a cost center but also a revenue center.?Customers might pick your company to team with, based on your engineering departments response times, cost, performance, schedule and reliability prediction capabilities.?Would a company invest more dollars into engineering if there was a revenue aspect in technical capabilities??Furthermore, future government contract awards are based on past performance to predict future performance.?I’ve seen CSS become a key component of the bid and proposal process by providing accurate estimates of bids based on understanding key technical challenges.

Finally, think about how your company’s engineering departments are functioning not just within its own industry but with up and comers in the industry that are disruptors nationally and internationally.?Change or die.?This is the motto companies must live by and strive toward.?Dwelling on the status quo until forced to change will prove too costly and destine your company to obsolescence.

If you're are a department manager of an engineering group and are looking for an independent assessment, evaluation, and collection of ideas, please contact me. Over the years of consulting I've developed a process for assessing the status of a department and its next logical steps.

If you’re a VP looking to reorganize an engineering team or group, please call me and I can help with minimizing negative impacts as well as shortening the transition. It's been obvious to me that reorganizations over the years have not always been optimum.

I believe a stronger and united America means peace and prosperity in the world. I also believe, CSS can be a key component of competitive advantage, on the world stage, and, it will continue to gain importance more and more each year. The longer a company waits, the farther behind it becomes. The race has already started.