Many of the ideas and concepts regarding the targeting of an “agile” maintenance strategy for System or the System of Systems (SoS) begin with the formalizing of a unified approach to collectively capture the functionality of the participating designs into a robust integrated systems’ design development and process. But this design development process must be able to fully assess not solely the top-down functional allocation Systems’ Design and Sustainment Requirements (Operational Availability, etc.) but also be fully positioned to assess and validate the functional and failure cause (root cause) propagation from the bottom-up.
Designing for the System or Vehicle sustainment lifecycle must consider the adopting of a well-planned diagnostics engineering process using that facilitates a multi-organizational approach to advanced and robust tools that do far more than simply “share data”. However, initially, the sharing of diagnostically-relevant design data should be sufficiently robust to be performed between design disciplines (e.g. Reliability, Maintenance or Diagnostics Engineering) and partnering companies and while seamlessly crossing design domains – effectively and comprehensively. This “shared” data will be restructured in a collaborate environment and then fully integrated by Systems Integrator.
Once the diagnostic data sharing paradigm has been instituted, ISDD establishes an enriched integrated diagnostic design development environment that, while protecting the sensitivity and proprieties of any externally-supplied design data, enables a comprehensive and agile data integration mechanism for the System Integrator to “integrate” and “repurpose” the shared data into the System, regardless of design size, complexity or mixture of Design Domains:
The ISDD design development process fosters the diagnostic integration of both interim and final development deliveries of the design’s related diagnostic engineering data. The diagnostic engineering data will minimally include the determining of the most optimum test placement of sensors, BIT or test observability, if any, by the describing of the test coverage per each test per any operational mode or condition of the design as a function of the operational System.
The comprehensiveness of the diagnostic data results from the implementation of the ISDD process, which permeates through traditional design discipline boundaries. As the diagnostic design data is provided by any companion design discipline or external team partner, ISDD establishes a structure that produces an evolving and “living” diagnostic model as it integrates each design piece throughout the design development lifecycle.
Assessing the progress of the diagnostic capability of any developing piece or combination pieces of the design can be assessed at any time throughout the diagnostic development process. Therefore, at any point during development any progress towards the diagnostic requirements can be tracked, modified or enhanced as the design progresses. Design decisions (parts selection process, test point selection, maintenance philosophy, diagnostic reasoning technologies, etc.) can also be evaluated against the System sustainment requirements (Operational Success, Mean Time Between Operational Aborts, Operational Availability, etc.). This can be worked and levied against all levels of the design and at any desired point during design development as the assessments should be retrieved upon demand as “outputs” from the captured diagnostic design(s).