6
Summary, Recommendations, and Research Needs

The design and manufacturing enterprise can be interpreted using the flow diagram presented in Figure 2-2, which seeks to capture series and parallel activities at several levels of detail over time during the development of a product. At the lowest level (the bottom of the "V"), individual components are designed and manufactured for integration into subsystems. In an automotive context, components might include brake rotors, suspension parts, or engine control computers. At the next level (the middle of the V), these components are assembled into subsystems—the brake subsystem, the suspension subsystem, or the engine. The subsystems are then integrated into a platform, in this example, an automobile. Finally, at the enterprise level (the tips of the V), such matters as marketing, distribution, and life-cycle management are considered.

Bridging design and manufacturing requires the ability to conceptualize, analyze, and make decisions at all levels of the V in Figure 2-2. Using this framework, knowledge and information from several disciplines can be integrated to make intelligent decisions at all levels. New tools (Chapter 3) can enable the effective application of this process. As depicted in the colors in Figure 2-2, software tools are not available (red) for many of the required product development activities. For other activities, software tools may be emerging (yellow) or common (green) but are not interoperable and so are not used together, or are used inefficiently. When tools are fully interoperable, designers and engineers can use and link various data and models for a given activity as well as across different activities required for product realization. For example, tools that allow data to be easily shared instead of being regenerated or re-entered are more efficient, as are tools that allow information at all levels to be viewed with an appropriate amount of abstraction.

New collaborative environments will also be necessary to bridge design and manufacturing. These environments will use modeling and simulation tools to enable collaborations between different disciplines. Realization of integrated engineering design with manufacturing, variously referred to as design for manufacturing, design for six sigma, or concurrent design and manufacturing, further requires implementation of an up-front series of program planning steps within the DoD acquisition process, as discussed in Chapter 5, to achieve measurable savings in the cost and time to first deployment. Such savings in cost and time in commercial industry are discussed in Chapter 4.

In the process of developing recommendations in various disciplinary areas, described in Chapter 3, some common themes emerged regarding the flow of information and knowledge between the different areas. These themes—system requirements, geometric information, and material properties and process data—form the fabric of the entire design and manufacturing system in commercial industry and in the DoD acquisition process. This chapter collects the



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production 6 Summary, Recommendations, and Research Needs The design and manufacturing enterprise can be interpreted using the flow diagram presented in Figure 2-2, which seeks to capture series and parallel activities at several levels of detail over time during the development of a product. At the lowest level (the bottom of the "V"), individual components are designed and manufactured for integration into subsystems. In an automotive context, components might include brake rotors, suspension parts, or engine control computers. At the next level (the middle of the V), these components are assembled into subsystems—the brake subsystem, the suspension subsystem, or the engine. The subsystems are then integrated into a platform, in this example, an automobile. Finally, at the enterprise level (the tips of the V), such matters as marketing, distribution, and life-cycle management are considered. Bridging design and manufacturing requires the ability to conceptualize, analyze, and make decisions at all levels of the V in Figure 2-2. Using this framework, knowledge and information from several disciplines can be integrated to make intelligent decisions at all levels. New tools (Chapter 3) can enable the effective application of this process. As depicted in the colors in Figure 2-2, software tools are not available (red) for many of the required product development activities. For other activities, software tools may be emerging (yellow) or common (green) but are not interoperable and so are not used together, or are used inefficiently. When tools are fully interoperable, designers and engineers can use and link various data and models for a given activity as well as across different activities required for product realization. For example, tools that allow data to be easily shared instead of being regenerated or re-entered are more efficient, as are tools that allow information at all levels to be viewed with an appropriate amount of abstraction. New collaborative environments will also be necessary to bridge design and manufacturing. These environments will use modeling and simulation tools to enable collaborations between different disciplines. Realization of integrated engineering design with manufacturing, variously referred to as design for manufacturing, design for six sigma, or concurrent design and manufacturing, further requires implementation of an up-front series of program planning steps within the DoD acquisition process, as discussed in Chapter 5, to achieve measurable savings in the cost and time to first deployment. Such savings in cost and time in commercial industry are discussed in Chapter 4. In the process of developing recommendations in various disciplinary areas, described in Chapter 3, some common themes emerged regarding the flow of information and knowledge between the different areas. These themes—system requirements, geometric information, and material properties and process data—form the fabric of the entire design and manufacturing system in commercial industry and in the DoD acquisition process. This chapter collects the

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production recommendations made by the committee in different disciplinary areas, identifies common themes, and also provides recommendations on bridging design and manufacturing in DoD acquisition as well as in engineering education. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING Recommendation 1. Systems Engineering: The Department of Defense should develop tools to facilitate the definition of high-level mission requirements and systems-level decision making. Tools to create, visualize, and analyze design and manufacturing alternatives can facilitate systems-level decision making. A specific opportunity is to develop tools for converting customer needs into engineering specifications, and for decomposing and distributing those specifications to subsystems and components. The design and manufacturing process leading to product realization is essentially a system of systems. Performance requirements are set at the highest level. For example, in an automotive system, the vehicle capacity, performance, weight, and cost are specified. In weapons systems, range, power, and cost are specified. These requirements come from analysis of the needs of the customer and from estimates of funding and other resources. Performance requirements, set at the highest level, flow down to the other levels in the form of system and interoperability specifications. Conceptual designs are broken down into subsystem and component designs. Decisions are then made about materials, assembly, and manufacturing processes. Information may also flow back up this chain to modify the design. Such a sequential approach, however, can lead to inefficiencies. Decisions may be made at one level without full consideration of the implications for other levels. For example, parts may be designed that cannot be manufactured or parts can be manufactured that are difficult to assemble. Simple manufacturing processes may be impossible to use because of an arbitrary design specification. A systems engineering approach can avoid these consequences by requiring collaboration at different levels and collective decision making. Moving from a linear approach to an integrated systems-level approach will require substantial cultural and organizational changes. In order for such an approach to work, all of the participants require access to sufficient and timely information. Designers need to be able to work with a multidimensional trade space, where design alternatives can be effectively compared. Software tools can make important contributions to this effort. The systems approach requires that analyses and decisions be made in multiple disciplines and that global optimization be performed. Further, since it is likely that several different analyses will be done, functional interoperability between the various computer codes is essential. Finally, the integration of such tools will require significant training. Research is needed on improved techniques to derive and elicit mission needs, and to translate those needs into model-based requirements and executable specifications. The current process for this step is largely experiential and tends to force designers to think within the constraints of previously developed products, discouraging innovation in favor of incremental improvement. So that designers can link system requirements and full component specifications, better tools and techniques are needed to create, visualize, and analyze the design trade space. These tools will include fully interoperable codes, where data do not have to be recreated for different analyses. They will also support automated abstraction of the data at different levels. The DoD can foster the growth of this systems approach in two ways. Funding can be provided for demonstrations and benchmarks of existing tools. This funding would also encourage improved interoperability. The DoD can also support systems engineering curricula

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Further, programs can be developed, along the lines of the NSF Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) program, to disseminate these methods into industry and government laboratories. ENGINEERING DESIGN Recommendation 2. Engineering Design: The Department of Defense should develop interoperable and composable tools that span multiple technical domains to evaluate and prioritize design alternatives early in the design process. Improving interoperability, composability, and integration of design and manufacturing software is a complex problem that can be addressed with near-, mid-, and long-term objectives. In the near term, developing translators between existing engineering design environments and simulation tools can solve problems with minimum effort. In the mid term, a common data architecture can improve interoperability among engineering design environments and simulation tools. Key long-term research goals include (1) the development of interoperable modeling and simulation of product performance, manufacturability, and cost; (2) the creation of tools for automated analysis of design alternatives; and (3) the application of iterative optimization using both new and legacy codes. Almost 70 percent of the cost of a product is set by decisions made early in the engineering design process. If system integrators have the ability to see and work with a large design space, they can better analyze trade-offs between alternatives. Designers need to be able to work within a multidimensional space where design alternatives can be effectively compared. While adequate design tools exist for making decisions within a narrow framework, mature tools do not exist for making decisions over the broad range of design and manufacturing shown in Figure 6-1. The ability to integrate modeling and simulations across multiple domains is yet to be demonstrated. Domains may include geometric modeling, performance analysis, life-cycle analysis, cost analysis, and manufacturing. If such simulations were able to integrate system behavior and performance in multiple domains, performance, manufacturability, and cost information could be considered and optimized early in the design process. Such integration will require giant leaps in interoperability among various software packages and databases. Designers also need tools that allow them to explore a wider design space. Such an approach encourages innovation. However, the designer must be able to adequately assess the feasibility of radical designs by supported behavior, manufacturability, and cost analyses. An important challenge lies in the fact that many performance metrics conflict and require careful trade-off analyses. These problems can be extremely complex. In the absence of tools for exploring trade spaces, people argue or rely on their opinions. The efficiency and productivity of the engineering design process are affected by the tools that are available to designers, the degree to which these tools (often deriving from different disciplines) are integrated, and the culture that supports the use of these tools. Integration among the various tools used during the engineering design (geometric modeling tools, performance analysis tools, control system development tools, life-cycle analysis tools, cost-estimating tools, and manufacturing simulation tools) was clearly identified as a critical shortcoming of existing software. It is critical that this issue be addressed in order for bridging of design and manufacturing to become a reality. The committee identified both short-term and longer-term approaches to address this issue, starting with translators between existing codes and advancing to complete data architectures developed for this purpose.

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production Organizational culture changes are essential to produce gains in productivity and efficiency. These issues are also the most difficult to address. However, a new generation of engineers trained to accept, and indeed to expect, integration of design and manufacturing is the best long-term solution. MATERIALS SCIENCE Recommendation 3. Materials Science: The Department of Defense should create, manage, and maintain open-source, accessible, and peer-reviewed tools and databases of material properties to be used in product and process design simulations. Integrated tools and databases for materials design, materials selection, process simulation, and process optimization are key to virtual manufacturing. Data gathered from manufacturing and materials processing using a variety of sensors can validate and improve design, modeling, simulation, and process control. Materials play a key role in any product. These materials are selected based on their ability to meet the product specifications, availability, and cost. While new materials with enhanced capabilities are constantly being developed, the greatest impact on the design and manufacturing enterprise may come from more effective use of existing materials. The time scale for development, characterization, and acceptance of new materials may be too long to have a significant impact on manufacturing in the near term. Effective use of today's materials can be greatly enhanced by using software tools. In particular, databases of accurate and well-characterized material properties would have a significant impact on the quality and speed of product design and manufacturing. Validation by peer review of such databases is essential for their acceptance. Conventional materials such as monolithic metals, ceramics, and polymers will continue to be the most important ones used in production. However, the relationships between structure and properties in these materials are yet to be fully understood and their potential is not realized. Thus, continued funding of fundamental research intended to delineate the relationships between processing, structure, properties, and performance in these materials is warranted. Both experimental investigations and fundamental simulations are necessary to understand these relationships. The variety of forming processes by which materials are converted into products (e.g., casting, forging, stamping, cutting, molding, and welding) can all be simulated by modeling and analysis. However, the fidelity of these analyses depends strongly on the properties of the material in a variety of states and under different external conditions. In addition, even when databases exist, many analysis codes suffer from a lack of interoperability with each other and with specific databases. This makes a strong case for an extended database of materials properties. Most processing simulations require a mesh of the volume of the product, and often the tool that is used to manufacture it, as well. Generating these volumetric representations from the surface models used in other design processes remains a time-consuming and expensive task. Optimization tools can be used effectively to improve product designs. However, their use in process simulations is relatively rare because the simulations themselves are slow and expensive, and this precludes adequate exploration of the design space. Research on more efficient optimization methods and on coupling these methods to legacy codes is needed. Any simulated process is only valid within prescribed boundary conditions. Often, the boundary conditions are not well characterized or are unnecessarily limited, and this limits use of the generated data. Sensors can be deployed in both research and manufacturing

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production environments to improve the fidelity of the simulations of various manufacturing processes. As an example, solidification processing is an area where sensors are used effectively. Because the interfacial heat transfer characteristics cannot be completely predicted, temperature sensors embedded in the mold are used to "tune" the simulation parameters. The use of such sensor data in conjunction with modeling can provide process control for many other manufacturing processes as well. Validated data can also be used to develop methods to predict material properties from fundamental physics and to develop constitutive models that predict material behavior for a wide range of materials and conditions that are outside measured boundary conditions. Success in this area will greatly enhance the next generation of virtual manufacturing. The DoD should create, manage, and maintain a database of material properties to be used in product and process design simulations. Entries in this database should be validated and peer-reviewed by the community at large. Further, the DoD must assert ownership of material property data generated under its auspices. Process simulation should become a required component of DoD system development. Methods for design optimization and sensitivity analysis should be developed, and standards for integrating codes into design environments should be implemented. MANUFACTURING Recommendation 4. Manufacturing: The Department of Defense should assess the role and impact of outsourcing on the integration of manufacturing and design functions. Assessing the impact of outsourcing key activities can help determine how to minimize complexity and maximize coordination in various organizational structures between manufacturing systems. Tools that include efficient algorithms for production scheduling and procedures for flexible factory design can ease the difficulties of outsourcing. Improvement in the coordination of design and manufacturing involves both technical and organizational actions. Within a single company, coordination between design, materials supply, production scheduling, and process control can be difficult; outsourcing of tightly coupled design and manufacturing activities adds complexity to an already complex bridging process. For example, software tools in use across many organizational boundaries may not communicate without substantial effort. Creation of new technical knowledge in this domain will not be sufficient without accompanying improvements in management methods and organizational arrangements used for outsourcing. These include how to structure cross-functional teams, how to transfer information in a timely manner between team members, and how to identify and resolve conflicts and discrepancies. Implementing the results of research in this area from both business and engineering schools will help improve design–manufacturing coordination. Organizational and managerial structures that facilitate teamwork can make manufacturing efficient and can overcome the tendency toward decentralization that is magnified by outsourcing. Economic models can estimate the private and public rate of return for investments in virtual design and manufacturing tools and help characterize how incentives and organizational structures affect the adoption of those tools. Economic models of outsourcing choices can also help to assess the strategic impacts on companies, industries, and national defense. The loss of national capability due to outsourcing to offshore companies may become clearer with more appropriate models. Outsourcing of software development, in particular to offshore companies,

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production may represent a substantial barrier to interoperability. LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT Recommendation 5. Life-Cycle Assessment: The Department of Defense should develop tools and databases that enable life-cycle costs and environmental impact to be quantified and integrated into design and manufacturing processes. Establishing and maintaining peer-reviewed databases for environmental emissions and impacts of various materials and manufacturing processes will be critical for the government to integrate these factors into acquisition processes. Environmental performance metrics that combine multiple impacts are most useful for design decisions. The development of high-level optimization methods can allow analysis of the trade-offs between cost, performance, schedule, and environmental impact. In a systems approach to design and manufacturing, the cost of a product over its entire life is considered. Cost can be viewed from several dimensions. First, there is the acquisition cost of a product that includes design, development, and manufacturing. After acquisition, operating or ownership cost is incurred by operators of the product, which is particularly relevant for defense systems that may last generations. In this case, design decisions can have a profound impact on the adaptability of defense systems to modification or retrofits. Third, there is the environmental impact of manufacturing processes and end-of-life recycling or disposal. The metrics for quantifying all of these assessments are challenging. Accurate assessment is difficult because gathering the necessary data is expensive and also may be subjective or arbitrary. One reason is that recycling is often done by widely distributed small businesses that operate with a variety of business models, making the economics of the industry opaque. There is also a need for tools that can integrate life-cycle assessment metrics into design environments for performance and manufacturability. This would enable "design for environment" approaches to also be considered early in the design cycle. COMMON THEMES Different disciplinary areas are directly involved in the design and manufacturing process—systems engineering, engineering design, materials science, manufacturing, and life-cycle assessment. Other supporting infrastructures are involved indirectly and affect all of these specific fields in an overarching way. System Integration Bridging is inherently integrative and requires tools and methods that are holistic. The committee's assessment of current information technology (IT) tools indicates that few provide significant integration. Models and simulations thrive at the component level or in one phase of the product creation process. At higher levels of subsystems and systems or across phases of the product creation process, the existence and use of these virtual tools drop off sharply. Among the reasons is that components operate in one phenomenological domain or in a relatively simple system, whereas subsystems and systems involve many phenomena and are big and complex. Similarly, each phase of the product creation process involves a narrow set of disciplines with its own vocabulary and methods, whereas across many levels, a number of cultures, methods, and processes have to be merged. Major advances will require integration of disparate databases, representations of phenomena, mathematical models, methods,

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production communication networks, and organizations. Data Management Success in bridging design and manufacturing depends on the successful management of data. At the component level, designers need extensive and reliable material property data. Robust tools are needed to efficiently translate geometric design data for use with the various analysis codes. Also needed are effective tools for projecting total life-cycle cost using these data. The DoD should establish guidelines and procedures for the sharing of data, models, and simulations that still protect proprietary and security concerns. Materials selection and process design require reliable databases for material properties, and reliable constitutive models to predict material behavior over a wide range of conditions. The DoD should establish and maintain open material property databases. Public validation and verification of these databases must be organized to ensure their reliability. A central organization could help to eliminate redundant efforts and to consolidate and leverage expenditures by DoD and other government agencies. Some of these data may be obtained through improved fundamental physics simulations. The DoD should continue to support these efforts. The most immediate benefit will derive from studies of conventional materials. Effective bridging of design and manufacturing will require better ability to seamlessly pass design data between the different levels. A phased approach is recommended to improve this situation: A short-range recommendation is to develop translators between existing engineering design environments and simulation tools. An intermediate-range recommendation is to develop a database or architecture available to all engineering design environments and simulation tools. A long-range research topic is to develop fully interoperable, multiple-resolution, multiple-domain modeling and simulation of product behavior, performance, manufacturability, and cost. Design and Analysis Methodologies Improved design and analysis methods are critical to the successful bridging of design and manufacturing. These methods must be capable of resolving multiple length and time scales and be coupled to multiple domains. There are critical needs in three areas: Product behavior and performance System behavior and performance Manufacturability and cost Tools are needed for the automated synthesis of design alternatives and for improved exploration of engineering design spaces. Research is needed to develop optimal design tools that effectively consider multiple objectives, particularly those arising in different domains. These tools should identify areas of high sensitivity to normal process and product variations, leading to improved monitoring and sensing for product and process control. Organizational Issues Improvement in design–manufacturing coordination involves both technical and

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production managerial/organizational actions. Creation of new technical knowledge in this domain will not be sufficient without accompanying improvements in management methods and organizational arrangements. These include how to structure cross-functional teams, how to flow information in a timely manner between team members, how to identify and resolve conflicts and discrepancies, and so on. These are ongoing research topics in business schools and some engineering schools. These activities should be encouraged. Research on outsourcing of key activities to determine how to minimize complexity and maximize coordination is also needed, along with better economic models of outsourcing choices that reflect the strategic impacts on companies and industries. Loss of national capability also needs to be addressed. The DoD must ensure that U.S. engineering graduates are capable of performing the analysis and design discussed in this report. Modeling and simulation plans should be made a required component for all DoD acquisition programs. The DoD should institute incentives for program managers to develop new tools and databases that contribute to the general infrastructure, including an annual competition for the best infrastructure contributions. Other creative means should be sought to provide incentives for adoption of modeling and simulation. Infrastructure As outsourcing becomes more prevalent, and with it a certain amount of offshoring, maintaining design and manufacturing capability in the United States is a real concern. It is essential that the United States continue to produce students who are trained for design, manufacturing, and systems engineering. We must also maintain a manufacturing capability in the United States that employs these graduates. Engineering Education Recommendation 6. Engineering Education: The Department of Defense should invest in the education and training of future generations of engineers who will have a thorough understanding of the concepts and tools necessary to bridge design and manufacturing. Integrating knowledge of virtual manufacturing into university curricula to train new engineers can help them use tools to bridge design and manufacturing. To ensure an adequate supply of such trained engineers, the DoD can help to develop programs to increase the quality and the number of graduating engineers available to work in these fields. It is also critical to retain U.S. capability in contributing disciplines, such as materials science and engineering. The availability of an educated domestic workforce is crucial to the quality of life, to the national defense, and to the economic security and competitiveness of the nation, and a key part of this workforce is in the manufacturing sector. The education and training of tomorrow's workforce become even more critical when one considers that the entire design and manufacturing field has expanded greatly in knowledge in recent years and will continue to do so, most likely at an even faster pace, in the foreseeable future. Information technology is rapidly enhancing the process of communication between customers, engineers, and manufacturers. The broadening of the arena requires an integrated and well-balanced science and engineering curriculum that covers systems, design, materials, and manufacturing. An integrated approach for traditional educational institutions as well as for certification programs for practitioners will ensure that the workforce is able to use the new tools and strategies for efficient product realization.

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production LEVERAGING DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING IN THE DOD ACQUISITION PROCESS Recommendation 7. Defense Acquisition Processes: The Department of Defense should define best practices for government ownership rights to models, simulations, and data developed during system acquisitions. Formal guidelines and best practices for transferring models, simulations, and data between the government and its contractors are essential for competitive procurement. Instituting common model access, common model databases, and common document controls will ensure that information generated under government funding is available to multiple program managers. Incentives for program managers to develop integrated design and manufacturing tools can make simulation-based acquisition become a reality for DoD programs. Well-defined metrics for integration of design and manufacturing can help the program managers use simulation-based acquisition. Metrics that are compatible with different acquisition programs will allow these investments to be leveraged in the future. Also, specifying the modeling and simulation techniques that will be used in the proposal evaluation process, especially the cost structure analysis and affordability models, will facilitate simulation-based acquisition. Integrating the concept-of-operations definition into the modeling and simulation program plans can bring end users into the acquisition process and thus foster a more successful transition to military capability. Given the formal support of simulation-based acquisition by the DoD, modeling and simulation plans could become a central requirement in all defense acquisition programs. Common tools and plans will naturally emerge, and these can be reused to ensure real growth and progress in acquisition. As the quality, accuracy and applicability of modeling and simulation tools grow, the simulation-based acquisition policy will be realized. Instituting incentives for program managers to use modeling and simulation tools can help this vision become a reality. Collaborative environments support the integration and interoperability of models, simulations, and data through an overarching structure that facilitates the secure linkage of modeling and simulation across distributed locations and organizations. The establishment of such collaborative environments can link modeling and simulation between phases in the product realization process (such as requirements definition, design, manufacturing, live-fire testing, and acquisition), as well as connect distributed locations and organizations, thus facilitating the sharing of models, simulations, and data. Modeling and simulation tools used in the acquisition process will also be able to be integrated into increasingly complex performance simulations. As the Department of Defense builds capabilities to support an agile and evolving warfighter, this agility can be supported by transformations in defense acquisition.1 Establishing strong connections between the levels of existing expertise and capabilities already available within the DoD's modeling and simulation infrastructure is a critical step that includes establishing the role of the government research and development service laboratories in this process. Modeling and simulation will become more valuable and widespread when the tools and data developed in one DoD program can be reused in others. The modeling and simulation 1   Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense, "Transformational Planning Guidance," 2003. Available at: http://www.oft.osd.mil/index.cfm. Accessed May 2004.

OCR for page 81
Retooling Manufacturing: Bridging Design, Materials, and Production tools include not just codes, but also supporting data, databases, environments, and the associated validation and verification test results. Negotiating incentives to provide models, simulations, and data as contract deliverables will provide program managers and their integrated product team staff with insight into the design, engineering, manufacturing, and performance trade-offs in a way that is not available in current procurement schemes. It also provides a starting point on the path to establishing modeling and simulation as a method for ensuring that design requirements are met. These deliverables would lead to a reduced amount of validation testing, and thus lower overall cost and faster product delivery times.