Systems Engineering Management Project
Matt Schwartz
Russell Sharpe
Nick Williams
Agenda
 Review of the mission
 Systems Engineering context
-Requirements Analysis, Operational Scenarios, Functional
Decomposition
 Existing system architecture
–Current operational scenarios and requirements
–Functional Diagrams that help visualize the system
–Discussion of drawbacks
 Proposed Systems
-Progressive System
-Incremental System
 Discussion
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
2
Background
 The primary digital repository for Vanderbilt
University
 Built to ensure long term preservation and access
 Open Access Movement
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
3
Current System
Design
Challenges
 Workload primarily
handled by Archivists
 Unpredictable
workflow
and Catalogers
 Available but not
heavily advertised
 Irregularity in
publisher policy
 Unpredictable open
access movement
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
4
Project Role
 Use systems engineering to identify ways to improve
how the mission is achieved
 Automation
 Marketing
 Stay within core competency of the organization
 Control remains with library experts
 System remains adaptable to the ever-changing
academic environment
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
5
Agenda
 Review of the mission
 Systems Engineering context




-Requirements Analysis, Operational Scenarios, Functional
Decomposition
Existing system architecture
–Current operational scenarios and requirements
–Functional Diagrams that help visualize the system
–Discussion of initial drawbacks
Incremental System
Progressive System
Discussion
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
6
Systems Engineering
 Requirements analysis
 Define
 Prioritize
 Operational Scenarios
 Functional analysis
 Hierarchy
 Flow
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
7
Stakeholders
 Professors:
 Publishers:
 Faculty Administration:
 University Administration:
 Vanderbilt LITS:
 Vanderbilt Students:
 Other Students:
 Search Engine Users:
 Other University Libraries:
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
Primary
Primary
Policy
Policy
Functionality
Primary Access
Access
Access
Modeling
8
Operational Scenarios
 System acquires research document
 System acquires alternative media type
 System server fails
 System manager encounters rights dispute
 External user downloads file from Discover Archive
system
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
9
Agenda
 Review of the mission
 Systems Engineering context




-Requirements Analysis, Operational Scenarios, Functional
Decomposition
Existing system architecture
–Current operational scenarios and requirements
–Functional Diagrams that help visualize the system
–Discussion of initial drawbacks
Incremental System
Progressive System
Discussion
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
13
External Systems Diagram
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
14
Requirements Hierarchy
How do they work?
Why are the useful?
 Identify requirements of the
 Focus on necessary functions
system
 Organize requirements by
priority
 Weights requirements within
a branch
 Determine important
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
components
15
Requirements Hierarchy
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
16
Functional Hierarchies
Functional Flow Block Diagram
Enhanced Diagram
 Shows relationships between
 Adds understanding of
functions
 Visualizes logic of the system
 Useful for
- Identifying redundancies
-Identifying inefficiencies
information flow
 Includes inputs, outputs,
and triggers
 Useful for
-verifying complete
internal system
congruency
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
17
Functional Flow Block Diagram
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
18
Top Level EFFBD
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
19
Technical Performance Measures
(Currently)
 Human operated system
 No formal performance goals
 Document handling
 Cataloging
 User Accessibility
 Faculty Acceptance
 Automation in new system should incorporate
performance goals
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
20
Physical Architecture
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
21
Diagnosis & Improvement
 The current system functions acceptably at current
volume levels for document procurement, but requires
significant human resources to do so.
 True DiscoverArchive purpose demands a streamlined
and automated process
 The system should control access and track required
faculty registration in the event of Open Access
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
22
Further Diagnosis
 Utilize the “Five Why’s” technique:
 The system is not capable of handling increasing document
volume
 Why? The massive volume of research documents cannot be




6/30/2016
processed.
Why? The system relies on a single human element to
perform document acquisition.
Why? There is no computerized system to automate the
process.
Why? There is no mandate for DiscoverArchive.
Why? The Open Access initiative is just now developing in
research institutions.
Discover Archive
23
Implications for Improvement
 The next phase of our report will focus on developing
an improved system that will include these key
features:
 University mandate for open access
 Automated system for document procurement
 Automated registration tracking system
 Automated communication with faculty and publishers
to create addendums and obtain document rights
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
24
Sample Approach: Duke
 Addendums
 Most journals allow self archiving in an institution repository
 Some do not allow archiving, the author does not want to
negotiate, so the policy/license would be waived
 A small percentage would find the addendum valuable


Publishers tend to reject addenda out of hand
Direct request for needed rights-publisher writes in to contract
 Management: Option for faculty to submit, but majority
done by librarians propose publications
 Tie in to yearly faculty reporting process in ‘profiles’
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
25
Two System Method
 Incremental System
 Designed using existing
components
 Can be implemented in
increments
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
 Progressive System
 Designed from the
ground up
 New components
 Implementation at
once, ‘going live’ with an
all new system
26
Incremental System
 Assumption: open access mandate has not been
passed
 Builds upon the existing system, adding automation
where most necessary
 The system design still relies largely on human
elements to perform daily tasks, and does not
anticipate much of an increased dataflow
 The incremental system will be designed with the goal
of supporting a future mandate and radical system
upgrade
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
27
Incremental System
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
28
Existing System
6/30/2016
Incremental system
Discover Archive
29
Progressive System
 Focus on full automation
of system manager tasks
 Redesigned researcher
upload website
 Automated workflow from
upload to catalogers
 Custom software for
iTunesU data harvesting
 Allows for more attention
to open access promotion
Top level functional architecture for
radical system
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
30
Progressive System – Functional
Architecture
 Focus on research
archiving process
 Upload website portal
handles most tasks
 Gathering uploads
 Creating metadata
 Verifying publisher
policies
 Assigning catalogers
to the research
 Pushes tasks back to the
researcher to improve efficiency
 Metadata creation
 Publisher contract negotiation
 File formatting
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
31
Existing
Functional
Hierarchy
Progressive
Functional
Hierarchy
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
32
Existing Physical Architecture
Progressive Physical Architecture
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
33
Risk
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
34
Risk Mitigation Strategy
 Incremental
 Improper rights
obtainment: training
focus
 Progressive
 Software/website failure
and improper file
conversion: testing focus
Shared Risk
 Server Failure
 Model backup after other university servers
 Improper Submission
 Educate users and publicize the service
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
35
Implementation Scenarios
 Incremental
 Implement new services
as needed
 Shorter timeline
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
 Progressive
 More long-term
planning needed for
implementation
 Larger investment
36
System Budget and Timeline
Comparisons
 While the chosen system depends largely on the
passage of an Open Access mandate, it is also
important to weigh the variable costs of
implementation with budgetary concerns
 The Incremental system requires less deviation from
current operating procedures, and is therefore easier
and cheaper to implement
 The Progressive system aims to fulfill all of the
functional requirements presented by an Open Access
mandate, resulting in a much costlier and time
consuming installation
Incremental Implementation
Progressive Implementation
Important Schedule Differences
Budget Comparisons
Baseline Cost Report
$16,000.00
$14,000.00
$12,000.00
Cost
$10,000.00
$8,000.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
Interface
Implementation
$750.00
System
Verification
$400.00
Staff Training
Incremental
Develop New
Interface
$4,900.00
$1,250.00
Incremental
Activation
$1,000.00
Progressive
$14,700.00
$3,200.00
$1,000.00
$2,250.00
$1,700.00
Discussion of Systems
Incremental
Progressive
 Pros
 Pros
 Automates all research intake
 Automates iTunesU data
handling
 Creates contract addendums for
researchers and publishers
 Relieves manager from metadata
tasks
 Cons
 Requires large website redesign
 Difficult/expensive to implement
 May require research faculty
training
 Increased research intake
 Moderate automation of tasks
 Easily implemented
 Cons
 Could not handle a full open
access mandate
 Still requires manager to
handle large amounts of data
 Does not address alternative
media type handling
6/30/2016
Discover Archive
44