Michael Vinarcik
Michael J. Vinarcik is the Director (Digital Architecture and Requirements Engineering) in SAIC's Engineering Innovation Factory, an adjunct professor at the University of Detroit Mercy, and a visiting professor at CIDESI (Mexico City). He has thirty years of automotive and defense engineering experience. He received a BS (Metallurgical Engineering) from the Ohio State University, an MBA from the University of Michigan, and an MS (Product Development) from the University of Detroit Mercy.
Michael has presented at NDIA Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposia, INCOSE and American Society for Engineering Education regional conferences, and a tutorial at the 2010 INCOSE International Symposium. He contributed chapters to Industrial Applications of X-ray Diffraction, Taguchi’s Quality Engineering Handbook, and Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering; he also contributed a case study to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK).
Michael is a licensed Professional Engineer (Michigan) and holds INCOSE ESEP-Acq, OCSMP: Model Builder – Advanced, Booz Allen Hamilton Systems Engineering Expert Belt, ASQ Certified Quality Engineer, and ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer certifications. He is a Fellow of the Engineering Society of Detroit, chaired the 2010-2011 INCOSE Great Lakes Regional Conferences, and was the 2012 President of the INCOSE Michigan Chapter. He co-led INCOSE’s Model Based Conceptual Design Working Group and is the current INCOSE Treasurer and the President and Founder of Sigma Theta Mu, the systems honor society.
Michael has presented at NDIA Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposia, INCOSE and American Society for Engineering Education regional conferences, and a tutorial at the 2010 INCOSE International Symposium. He contributed chapters to Industrial Applications of X-ray Diffraction, Taguchi’s Quality Engineering Handbook, and Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering; he also contributed a case study to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK).
Michael is a licensed Professional Engineer (Michigan) and holds INCOSE ESEP-Acq, OCSMP: Model Builder – Advanced, Booz Allen Hamilton Systems Engineering Expert Belt, ASQ Certified Quality Engineer, and ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer certifications. He is a Fellow of the Engineering Society of Detroit, chaired the 2010-2011 INCOSE Great Lakes Regional Conferences, and was the 2012 President of the INCOSE Michigan Chapter. He co-led INCOSE’s Model Based Conceptual Design Working Group and is the current INCOSE Treasurer and the President and Founder of Sigma Theta Mu, the systems honor society.
less
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Michael Vinarcik
This paper illustrates the use of validation rules to support instruction (both stand-alone modeling exercises and a larger, collaborative modeling project). Validation rules have proven to be effective in reducing modeler errors when added incrementally in parallel with concepts introduced in class. The rules simplify grading (since the instructor can focus on value-added content instead of semantic correctness). In addition, the rules conform to the Seven Keys to Effective Feedback proposed by Grant Wiggins:
1. Goal-Referenced (Error reduction/style conformance)
2. Tangible and Transparent (Rules clearly explain what is wrong)
3. Actionable (Error messages direct the modeler how to fix the issue)
4. User-Friendly (Private feedback that marks elements with to simplify repair)
5. Timely (On demand and rapid feedback eliminates errors before they accumulate)
6. Ongoing (Available throughout the course of any modeling project)
7. Consistent (All students receive the same feedback).
The rules were continuously updated throughout the term in which they were introduced; students corrected new errors and improved their model quality as they executed their term projects. Extracts from six team projects will be presented and contrasted with selected past projects (subjected to the same validation rules) to demonstrate the efficacy of the approach. Several models published by notable SysML modelers will also be analyzed.
This paper details the content and use of the hypermodel profile, originally released by the author in 2017. It contains an organizational structure, stereotypes, queries, analysis aids, metrics, and quality checks that can be leveraged by students. Use of the profile allows students to focus on the intellectual content of their assignments while modeling in compliance to a provided style guide. It permits them to experience the benefits of automated quality checks, detailed inferential queries, and other modeling aids without having to have the advanced knowledge to construct them independently. This approach also exposes students to the full benefits of a sophisticated model and encourages them to explore and gain deeper insights into their system of interest.
The specifics of the hypermodel profile will be presented, including its organization, content, and customizations. Guidelines for its use will be presented in conjunction with lessons learned from its use at the University of Detroit Mercy in the Master of Science Product Development, Systems Engineering Certificate, and Advanced Electric Vehicle programs.
discipline for digital engineering. Descriptive system models can be used as the “central nervous system” of a system development effort (to federate a constellation of analytical models and other engineering content).
Hypermodeling is a methodology focused on maximizing model elegance through the efficient generation of a descriptive system model (with appropriate supporting content). It emphasizes the most simple, direct approach to rigorously capturing relevant information. Hypermodels use a limited set of model elements, relationships, and properties and seek to maximize the amount of information derived from the model.
The NeMO hypermodel, an example built by students at the University of
Detroit Mercy, provides a comprehensive demonstration of this approach and includes behavioral, structural, and analytic information as well as metrics and requirements.
It is hoped that this large example will serve as a focus for discussion and experimentation in the system modeling community. Links to hypermodeling tutorial videos are available for study and comment at the hypermodeling website: http://hypermodeling.systems.
Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is transforming how systems engineering is practiced. System modeling with SysML (the Systems Modeling Language) drives rigor and crispness into the formulation of system behavior, structure, and parametrics. The author has introduced MBSE into the Systems Architecture and Systems Engineering courses that are part of the MS Product Development (MPD) program at the University of Detroit Mercy. This presentation will discuss lessons learned over the course of several years, culminating in the capstone project from the Spring 2016 Systems Engineering course.
In that course, students were required to model a polar exploration submarine, starting from a handful of system elements provided by the instructor. Over the course of the exercise, the students matured the model, increasing its detail and complexity through organic growth. The final outcome was a respectable fraction of the size of large, professionally executed efforts (such as the 30 meter telescope model still under development).
The significant advantages in clarity, consistency, and overall integrity of a model-driven systems engineering effort will be highlighted; an emphasis will be placed on derived work products (tables, matrices, and derived properties) and their ability to provide relevant content to stakeholders.
The International Council on Systems Engineering initiated a Model-Based Systems Engineering initiative nearly fifteen years ago; one of the fruits of this effort is the System Modeling Language (SysML). Modern SysML tools are quite mature and have considerable capabilities to capture, characterize, and connect information.
A number of efforts are currently underway to maximize the value of SysML models, including the development of visualization, co-simulation, and robust model integration. An entire ecosystem of adjacent tools is evolving that will significantly impact the practice of systems engineering within the next five years. The author will present an integrated look at publically-available information about existing worldwide efforts and their implications for systems engineering practitioners.
For addition information, refer to the closely related topics of Information Management, Organizing Business and Enterprises to Perform Systems Engineering and Fundamentals of Services.
success and flawed architectures limit performance. However, SA is challenging to teach students because it is less of a “hard” science. At the University of Detroit Mercy, students in the MS Product Development (MPD) and Advanced Electric Vehicle (AEV) Certificate programs are exposed to a full term of SA. This class stresses the development of heuristics through exposure to mini case studies, class discussions, and several projects (including a field trip to the Henry Ford Museum to study multiple examples of competing historical architectures). The capstone project in this class requires teams of students to create a new architecture for a given set of criteria. One recent final project involved the creation of a space probe architecture that could meet
mission objectives given a challenging set of constraints and the creation of DODAF Viewpoints to communicate the architecture.
breakdowns in the architectural or systems engineering practices of the design team.
Despite the increased emphasis being placed on systems engineering, many systems engineering
textbooks and references focus on speci?c tools (such as requirements or interface management
systems). The few case studies included in these works are typically not exhaustive.
Well-constructed case studies can be used as the kernel of discussion among peers in the workplace. This case features a discussion about NASA’s CONTOUR mission; its failure illustrates a number of important SE principles.
One of the challenges faced by the JLTV program is the need to balance the “Iron Triangle” of performance, protection, and payload while managing the disparate requirements of the domestic services and international partners. The JLTV team developed processes to manage the cost, performance, and schedule risks associated with each of the three contractors participating in the Technology Development phase. This paper will describe the risk management processes and tools developed on the JLTV program to manage and mitigate these contractor risks and extract those that could impact the entire program.
However, the architecture of an engineering system has an even greater impact on its performance, robustness, and properties. Outstanding systems engineering and detail design cannot salvage an architecture that is fundamentally flawed. Despite architecture’s importance, many organizations do not explicitly explore alternatives and “jump” directly to systems-level design. This prematurely collapses the design space and squanders the opportunity to explore alternatives at the least costly phase in the design process.
Therefore, it is important to educate engineering managers about the key role that both systems architecture and systems engineering play in the success or failure of an engineering system. It is the belief of the authors that this may be accomplished reasonably well in a single course in programs where a more in-depth course sequence is not a realistic option. Although combining these topics restricts the depth at which either may be taught, there are natural synergies that allow this combination.
The goal of this combined course is to familiarize the engineering management students with both systems architecture and systems engineering, to understand the common pitfalls associated with each, and to begin to develop a mindset that continually considers architectural and systems engineering consequences of management decisions. The course focuses more on the “what” and “why” of systems architecture and systems engineering and less on the “how.” Detailed discussion of specific tools (such as DOORS) is omitted or significantly abbreviated to allow more time to be spent on fundamentals and case studies.
Despite the increased emphasis on systems engineering, most systems engineering textbooks tend to focus on specific tools (such as requirements or interface management systems) or describe the systems engineering and systems architecting process in a rather generic discussion. Case studies are typically brief and relatively sparse.
A typical teaching approach is to introduce a tool, illustrate how the tool can be applied, introduce another tool, etc. However, cultivating expertise in specific tools that may not be in use by a student’s employer adds little value – particularly if the student misses the holistic understanding of the topic because he is focusing on details of the tool. The authors believe that it is more useful to focus on teaching students to intuitively understand architectural and systems engineering issues. For that reason, they have adopted a case-based approach to teaching these topics.
Using topics drawn from history (ancient tombs and medieval cathedrals) and current events (the Airbus A380/Boeing 787 and the Ansari X Prize Competition), the authors present a broad spectrum of cases to their students. This engages the students, sparks classroom discussion, and enhances learning and retention of key topics.
The cases are presented using a variety of media (including PowerPoint slides, audio-visual presentations, or show-and-tell artifacts). The cases are typically used as lead-ins to the lecture, allowing the instructor to draw upon the outcomes (both positive and negative) of the case to illustrate key learning principles in the main lecture. Relevant and useful tools are still taught (such as QFD, Design Structure Matrices, functional decomposition, etc.) but the case studies provide interesting, motivational examples illustrating the need for such tools and the authors find it useful to ask the students to discuss how the tools of today might be (or have been) utilized in the design of the subjects of the case studies.
Case studies are also assigned as homework, allowing the students to research a topic and draw their own conclusions from their research and the course material. These assignments are sufficiently structured to foster students’ development but allow them some latitude to explore the topic. The purpose is to develop their analytical skills and encourage holistic viewpoints rather than requiring simple rote learning.
This paper will summarize several of the specific case studies which the authors use and discuss how each one is tied to specific topics and learning objectives of the courses. This case-based approach has been applied to separate, semester long courses in Systems Architecture and Systems Engineering as well as a condensed version of those two courses (a single semester course entitled Systems Architecture and Systems Engineering).