Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Design Support by MBSE: Established Best Practices

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Model-Based Systems Engineering

  • 113 Accesses

Abstract

Conceptual design of a product or a system is the preliminary phase of the system’s life cycle. Innovative ideas arise, high-level decisions are made, key technologies are identified, alternatives are compared, and major components are selected. Conversely, model-based systems engineering (MBSE) targets the entire life cycle of systems’ design and operation. MBSE is supported by tools for visualization, connecting requirements and structure, and promising productivity increase and better traceability. MBSE offers nonspecific support for conceptual design, and the interpretations for Model-Based-Conceptual-Design (MBCD) are still evolving. This chapter reviews current MBCD implementation trends. A comparison of these trends to existing document-based conceptual design methods produces best-practices and gap analysis. The Systems Modeling Language (SysML) is used for MBSE representation while Integrated-Conceptual-Design-Method (ICDM) represents the document-based methods for Conceptual-Design. ICDM was selected for its extensive toolset and concise process, while SysML was selected for its inherent extendibility and popularity among the MBSE community. This analysis highlights conceptual design processes and constructs, and the current capabilities of supporting tools. The chapter emphasizes MBSE features that flawlessly support conceptual design and the needed tailoring and extensions. Value-proposition is discussed on the merits of MBSE use within a conceptual design. The chapter is of interest to practitioners, methodologists, and tool vendors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. A. M. Madni and M. Sievers, “Model-based systems engineering: Motivation, current status, and research opportunities,” Syst. Eng., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 172–190, May 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21438.

  2. DoD - OUSD R&E, “DoD - DIGITAL ENGINEERING STRATEGY,” Washington, DC, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://fas.org/man/eprint/digeng-2018.pdf.

  3. INCOSE, INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 4th ed. INCOSE, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. P. Robinson, “Model-based Conceptual Design Working Group (MBCD WG) Charter,” 2013. https://www.incose.org/docs/default-source/wgcharters/model-based-conceptual-design.pdf?sfvrsn=920eb2c6_6.

  5. C. Delp et al., “The Challenge of Model-based Systems Engineering for Space Systems, Year 2,” INSIGHT, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 36–39, Dec. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1002/inst.200912436.

  6. B. A. Morris, D. Harvey, K. P. Robinson, and S. C. Cook, “Issues in Conceptual Design and MBSE Successes: Insights from the Model-Based Conceptual Design Surveys,” INCOSE Int. Symp., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 269–282, Jul. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2016.00159.x.

  7. NASA, “NASA System Engineering Handbook Revision 2,” Natl. Aeronaut. Sp. Adm., p. 297, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_systems_engineering_handbook_0.pdf.

  8. R. R. Wessen, C. Borden, J. Ziemer, and J. Kwok, “Space Mission Concept Development Using Concept Maturity Levels,” 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. Zarifian et al., “Team Xc: JPL’s collaborative design team for exploring CubeSat, NanoSat, and SmallSat-based mission concepts,” in 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2015, pp. 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2015.7119221.

  10. A. Hari, M. P. Weiss, and A. Zonnenshain, “ICDM – An Integrated Methodology for the Conceptual Design of New Systems,” 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Hari and M. P. Weiss, “ICDM - AN INCLUSIVE METHOD FOR CUSTOMER DRIVEN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,” 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Herscovitz and A. Hari, “Systems Engineering with ICDM - A Case Study,” INCOSE Int. Symp., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 989–996, Aug. 2002, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2002.tb02565.x.

  13. A. Hari, D. H. Cropley, and A. Zonnenshain, “Agile System Engineering for Creative Anti-Terror Solutions,” 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. P. Weiss and A. Hari, “Extension of the Pahl & Beitz Systematic Method for Conceptual Design of a New Product,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 36, pp. 254–260, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.03.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. A. Hari, J. E. Kasser, and M. P. Weiss, “How lessons learned from using QFD led to the evolution of a process for creating quality requirements for complex systems,” Systems Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1. pp. 45–63, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. A. Hari, M. P. Weiss, and A. Zonnenshain, “Design Quality Metrics Used as a Quantitative Tool for the Conceptual Design of a New product,” 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Caligiana, A. Liverani, D. Francia, L. Frizziero, and G. Donnici, “Integrating QFD and TRIZ for innovative design,” J. Adv. Mech. Des. Syst. Manuf., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. JAMDSM0015–JAMDSM0015, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1299/jamdsm.2017jamdsm0015.

  18. E. H. Forman and S. I. Gass, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process—An Exposition,” Oper. Res., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 469–486, Aug. 2001, https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231.

  19. S. Pugh, “Concept Selection - a Method that Works,” 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  20. S. Shoshany-Tavory, E. Peleg, A. Zonnenshain, and G. Yudilevitch, “MBSE for conceptual design: an integrative approach,” Syst. Eng., vol. Under Revi, 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  21. B. Cole et al., “Domain-specific languages and diagram customization for a concurrent engineering environment,” in 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2013, pp. 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2013.6497134.

  22. D. Knoll, C. Fortin, and A. Golkar, “A process model for concurrent conceptual design of space systems,” Syst. Eng., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 234–249, Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. W. J. Larson and J. R. Wertz, Eds., Space mission analysis and design, 3rd ed. Springer Netherlands, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. N. Mavris and K. Griendling, “Relational Oriented Systems Engineering and Technology Tradeoff Analysis (ROSETTA) Environment,” in 2011 6th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, Jun. 2011, pp. 49–54, https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2011.5966572.

  25. M. Abdelrazik, A. Elsheikh, M. Zayan, and A.-B. Elhady, “New Model-Based Systems Engineering Methodology Based on Transdisciplinary Quality System Development Lifecycle Model,” J. Eur. des Systèmes Autom., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 465–476, Nov. 2019, https://doi.org/10.18280/jesa.520505.

  26. J. C. Tejada, A. Toro-Ossaba, S. Muñoz Montoya, and S. Rúa, “A Systems Engineering Approach for the Design of an Omnidirectional Autonomous Guided Vehicle (AGV) Testing Prototype,” J. Robot., vol. 2022, pp. 1–13, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7712312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. B. John, “FAST Diagrames: The Foundation for Creating Effective Function Models,” Trizcon 2011, pp. 1–10, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  28. W. Power, A. Jeffrey, and K. Robinson, “Applying model-based system engineering to modelling and simulation requirements for weapon analysis,” in 2018 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2018, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2018.8396501.

  29. T. Bayer et al., “Update on the Model Based Systems Engineering on the Europa Mission Concept Study,” in 2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Mar. 2013, pp. 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2013.6496855.

  30. B. Kruse and K. Shea, “Design Library Solution Patterns in SysML for Concept Design and Simulation,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 50, pp. 695–700, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. R. E. Thompson, J. M. Colombi, J. Black, and B. J. Ayres, “Disaggregated Space System Concept Optimization: Model-Based Conceptual Design Methods,” Syst. Eng., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 549–567, Nov. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. A. M. Ross and D. E. Hastings, “The tradespace exploration paradigm,” 15th Annu. Int. Symp. Int. Counc. Syst. Eng. INCOSE 2005, vol. 2, pp. 1706–1718, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  33. K. R. Duncan and R. Etienne-Cummings, “A Model-Based Systems Engineering Approach to Trade Space Exploration of Implanted Wireless Biotelemetry Communication Systems,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1669–1677, Jun. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2874102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. D. Bilic, “Managing Variability in SysML Models of Automotive Systems,” 2020, [Online]. Available: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1470374.

  35. S. J. Saunders, “Return on Investment Using Model-Based Concept Design,” INSIGHT, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 23–25, Dec. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/inst.201417423.

  36. E. B. Rogers and S. W. Mitchell, “MBSE delivers significant return on investment in evolutionary development of complex SoS,” Syst. Eng., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 385–408, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. P. Dalsgaard, K. Halskov, and C. N. Klokmose, “A study of a digital sticky note design environment,” Sticky Creat. Post-it Note Cogn. Comput. Des., no. January, pp. 155–174, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816566-9.00007-0.

  38. J. K. Ziemer, R. R. Wessen, and P. V. Johnson, “Exploring the science trade space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team,” Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X17740406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. L. S. Wheatcraft and L. Lewis, “Concept Maturity Levels,” INCOSE Int. Symp., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1592–1607, Jul. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2018.00570.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. D. Knoll, C. Fortin, and A. Golkar, “Review of Concurrent Engineering Design practice in the space sector: state of the art and future perspectives,” in 2018 IEEE International Systems Engineering Symposium (ISSE), Oct. 2018, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/SysEng.2018.8544387.

  41. R. Cloutier et al., “Prototype of a Graphical CONOPS (Concept of Operations) Development Environment for Agile Systems Engineering,” p. 142, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  42. D. Mažeika and R. Butleris, “MBSEsec: Model-based systems engineering method for creating secure systems,” Applied Sciences (Switzerland), vol. 10, no. 7. 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072574.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    S. Shoshany-Tavory

  2. Metaphor Vision Ltd, Kefar-Saba, Israel

    E. Peleg

  3. The Gordon Center for Systems Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    A. Zonnenshain

Authors
  1. S. Shoshany-Tavory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Peleg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Zonnenshain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Shoshany-Tavory .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Azad M. Madni

  2. Lockheed Martin (United States), Bethesda, MD, USA

    Norman Augustine

  3. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Michael Sievers

Section Editor information

  1. Systems Engineering Division, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Robert J. Minnichelli

  2. The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA, USA

    Ryan A. Noguchi

  3. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    M. Sievers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Shoshany-Tavory, S., Peleg, E., Zonnenshain, A. (2022). Conceptual Design Support by MBSE: Established Best Practices. In: Madni, A.M., Augustine, N., Sievers, M. (eds) Handbook of Model-Based Systems Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_84-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27486-3_84-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27486-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27486-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation