Skip to main content Accessibility help

A holistic engineering approach to aeronautical product development

  • I. Staack (a1), K. Amadori (a2) and C. Jouannet (a2)


Product development, especially in aerospace, has become more and more interconnected with its operational environment. In a constant changing world, the operational environment will be subjected to changes during the life cycle of the product. The operational environment will be affected by not only technical and non-technical perturbations, but also economical, managerial and regulatory decisions, thus requiring a more global product development approach. One way to try tackling such complex and intertwined problem advocates studying the envisioned product or system in the context of system of systems (SoS) engineering. SoSs are all around us, probably in any field of engineering, ranging from integrated transport systems, public infrastructure systems to modern homes equipped with sensors and smart appliances; from cities filling with autonomous vehicle to defence systems.

Since also aerospace systems are certainly affected, this work will present a holistic approach to aerospace product development that tries spanning from needs to technology assessment. The proposed approach will be presented and analysed and key enablers and future research directions will be highlighted from an interdisciplinary point of view. Consideration of the surrounding world will require to look beyond classical engineering disciplines.


Corresponding author


Hide All

A version of this paper was presented at the 31st ICAS Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences in Belo Horizonte, Brazil in September 2018.



Hide All
1.Maier, M.W. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems, Systems Engineering, 1998, 1, (4), pp 267284.
2.Walden, D.D., Roedler, G.J., Forsberg, K.J., Hamelin, R.D. and Shortell, T.M. INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, 4th ed. International Council on Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
3.Holland, O.T. Taxonomy for the modeling and simulation of emergent behavior systems, Proceedings of the 2007 Spring Simulation Multiconference, SpringSim ’07, Vol. 2, Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego, CA, USA, 2007, pp 28-35.
4.Andersson, K., Norsell, M., Svantesson, C.G. and Andersson, J. Förstudie angående DTAG-metodik, Tech. Rep., Swedish National Defence College (FMV), 2010, Swedish.
5.Amadori, K., Bäckström, E. and Christopher, J. Future technologies prioritization for aircraft conceptual design, 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1746. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018.
6.Gideon, J., Dagli, C.H. and Miller, A.K. Taxonomy of systems-of-systems. Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2005, pp 356363.
7.Engler, W., Biltgen, P.T. and Mavris, D.N. Concept selection using an interactive reconfigurable matrix of alternatives (IRMA), 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1194. 2007.
8.Mavris, D.N. and Jimenez, H. An evolution of morphological analysis applications in systems engineering. 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, No. 972 in Aerospace Sciences Meetings. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010.
9.Roberts, W., Griendling, K., Gray, A. and Mavris, D.N. Unmanned vehicle collaboration research environment for maritime search and rescue. 30th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences. ICAS, 2016.
10.Rhodes, D.H., Ross, A.M. and Nightingale, D.J. Architecting the system of systems enterprise: Enabling constructs and methods from the field of engineering systems. 3rd Annual IEEE International Systems Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2009, pp 190195.
11.Rhodes, D.H. and Ross, A.M. Shaping socio-technical system innovation strategies using a five aspects taxonomy. 7th European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC), International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2010.
12.Axelsson, J. A systematic mapping of the research literature on system-of-systems engineering. 10th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2015, pp 1823.
13.Eremenko, P. Fang: fast, adaptable, next-generation ground vehicle, Tech. Rep., DARPA-BAA-12-15, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 2011.
14.DLR. AGILE: Aicraft 3rd generation MDO for innovative collaboration of heterogeneous teams of experts. Horizon 2020-EU.3.4, Project: 636202, 2018. [Online; accessed 2018-04-15]. URL
15.Modelica Association. FMI-standard: Functional mock-up interface, Modelica Association, 2019. [Online; accessed 2019-01-14]. URL
16.Staack, I. Aircraft Systems Conceptual Design. Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertation No. 1805, Department of Management and Engineering (IEI), Linköping University, Sweden, 2016.
17.Michaels, J. and Wood, W. Design to Cost. New Dimensions in Engineering Series. Wiley, ISBN 9780471609001, 1989.
18.ISO 15288. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015: Systems and software engineering – system life cycle processes. IEEE STD, 2015.
19.AUTOSAR. AUTOSAR methodology. Tech. Rep. V1.2.2 068, R3.2 Rev 1, Automotive Open System Architecture (AUTOSAR), 2006.
20.Benali, H., Ben Saoud, N.B. and Ben Ahmed, M. in Information System Development: Towards an Ontology of SoS Interoperability: Proposition of a SoS Interoperability Framework and a SoS Conceptual Interoperability Model, chap. 7. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
21.Ast, M., Glas, M. and Roehm, T. Creating an ontology for aircraft design: An experience report about development process and the resulting ontology. Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, 301256. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft-und Raumfahrt-Lilienthal-Oberth eV, 2013, pp 1-11.
22.Reiss, M., Moal, M., Barnard, Y., Ramu, J.P. and Froger, A. Using ontologies to conceptualize the aeronautic domain. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics. Cépaduès-Editions, 2006, pp 56-63.
23.Glas, M. Ontology-based model integration for the conceptual design of aircraft. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Munich (TUM), Germany, 2013. Weck, O.L. Fast adaptable next-generation ground vehicle challenge: Challenge analysis. DARPA # HR0011-13-C-0041 Phase 1 (FANG–1), Intelligent Action Inc., US, 2013.
25.Sztipanovits, J., Bapty, T., Neema, S., Koutsoukos, X. and Jackson, E. Design tool chain for cyber-physical systems: Lessons learned. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Design Automation Conference, DAC ’15. ACM, 2015, pp 81:181:6.
26.Simko, G., Levendovszky, T., Neema, S., Jackson, E., Bapty, T., Porter, J. and Sztipanovits, J. Foundation for model integration: Semantic backplane. 32nd Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 2012, pp 1077-1086.
27.Simko, G., Lindecker, D., Levendovszky, T., Neema, S. and Sztipanovits, J. Specification of cyber-physical components with formal semantics – integration and composition. Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp 471487.
28.Jackson, E., Levendovszky, T., and Balasubramanian, D. Reasoning about Metamodeling with Formal Specifications and Automatic Proofs. International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS 2011). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)/IEEE, 2011.
29.Kashiwara, M. and Schapira, P. Categories and Sheaves. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. ISBN 978-3-540-27949-5, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006.
30.DARPA. Fundamental design (FUN DESIGN). Tech. rep., Disruption opportunity special notice DARPA-SN-17-71, Defense Sciences Office (DSO), DARPA, 2017.
31.Klein, J. and van Vliet, H. A systematic review of system-of-systems architecture research. Proceedings of the 9th International ACM Sigsoft Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA ’13. ACM, New York, NY, US, 2013, pp 13-22.
32.Department of Defense. DoDAF V2.0 DoD architecture framework volume II: Architectural data and models. Version 2.02 Change 1, U.S. Department of Defense, 2015.
33.Ministry of Defence. MOD architecture framework guidance. Ministry of Defence, Military Equipment, logistics and technology, U.K., 2019. [Online; accessed 2019-03-12].
34.NATO. NATO architecture framework. Version 4, NAFv4, Architecture Capability Team Consultation, Command & Control Board, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 2018.
35.Steward, D.V. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1981 28, (3), pp 7174. Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEEE).
36.Helmer, R., Yassine, A.A. and Meier, C. Systematic module and interface definition using component design structure matrix. Journal of Engineering Design, 2010, 21, (6), pp 647675.
37.Yu, T., Goldberg, D.E., Sastry, K., Lima, C.F. and Pelikan, M. Dependency structure matrix, genetic algorithms, and effective recombination. Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 17. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009, pp 595626.
38.Pimmler, T.U. and Eppinger, S.D. Integration analysis of product decompositions. ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1994, pp 343351.
39.Fruchterman, T.M. and Reingold, E.M. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software – Practice and Experience, 1991, 21, (11), pp 11291164.
40.Hu, Y. Efficient and high quality force-directed graph drawing. The Mathematica Journal, 2006, 10, (1), pp 3771, Wolfram Media Inc.
41.Schaeffer, S.E. Graph clustering. Computer Science Review, 2007, 1, (1), pp 2764, Elsevier.
42.Bastian, M., Heymann, S. and Jacomy, M. Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2009.
43.Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. The semantic web: A new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American, 2002, Special Online Issue, 2, pp 2430.
44.Kuosa, T. Towards strategic intelligence: foresight, intelligence, and policy-making. Dynamic Futures, Vantaa, ISBN 978-952-68169-0-6, 2014.
45.Kindvall, G., Lindberg, A., Trane, C. and Westman, J. Exploring future technology development. Tech. rep., FOI-R-4200-SE, Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), ISSN 1650-1942, 2017.
46.Cho, Y. and Daim, T. “Technology Forecasting Methods”. Research and Technology Management in the Electricity Industry: Methods, Tools and Case Studies. Springer, 2013, pp 67112.
47.Silfverskiöld, S., Liwång, H., Hult, G., Sivertun, Å., Bull, P., Sigholm, J., Lundmark, M., von Gerber, C., Andersson, K. and Sturesson, P. Technology forecast 2017 – military utility of future technologies. Tech. rep., Report from Seminars at the Swedish Defence University’s (SEDU) Military-Technology Division, 2017.
48.Ross, A.M. and Rhodes, D.H. Using natural value-centric time scales for conceptualizing system timelines through epoch-era analysis. INCOSE International Symposium 2008. International Council on Systems Engineering, 2008, pp 115.
49.Collopy, P.D. and Hollingsworth, P.M. Value-driven design. Journal of Aircraft, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 2011, 48, (3), pp 749759.
50.Bertoni, M., Bertoni, A. and Isaksson, O. Evoke: A value-driven concept selection method for early system design. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2018, 27, (1), pp 4677, Springer, Berlin, Germany, Heidelberg.
51.Isaksson, O., Kossmann, M., Bertoni, M., Eres, H., Monceaux, A., Bertoni, A., Wiseall, S. and Zhang, X. Value-driven design: a methodology to link expectations to technical requirements in the extended enterprise. 23rd Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2013, pp 171187.
52.Bertoni, M., Bertoni, A., Isaksson, O., Amnell, H. and Johansson, C. Value-oriented concept selection in aero-engine sub-systems design: the evoke approach. 23rd Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering, Vol. 2, International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE); 2013, pp 977991.
53.Beesemyer, C., Ross, A.M. and Rhodes, D.H. Case studies of historical epoch shifts: Impacts on space systems and their responses. AIAA Space 2012 Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012, pp 113.
54.Rader, A.A., Ross, A.M. and Fitzgerald, M.E. Multi-epoch analysis of a satellite constellation to identify value robust deployment across uncertain futures. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014, pp 116.
55.Pina, A.L. Applying Epoch-Era Analysis for Homeowner Selection of Distributed Generation Power Systems. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.B. Aerospace Engineering, U.S., 2014.
56.Fitzgerald, M.E. and Ross, A.M. Mitigating contextual uncertainties with valuable changeability analysis in the multi-epoch domain. 2012 IEEE International Systems Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2012.
57.Fitzgerald, M.E. and Ross, A.M. Sustaining lifecycle value: Valuable changeability analysis with era simulation. 2012 IEEE International Systems Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2012.
58.Gaspar, H.M. and Erikstad, S.O. Handling temporal complexity in the design of non-transport ships using epoch-era analysis. International Journal Maritime Engineering, 2012, 154. Transactions RINA.
59.Parker, V.D., Ross, A.M. and Rhodes, D.H. Program and portfolio affordability tradeoffs under uncertainty using epochera analysis. INCOSE International Symposium, Vol. 26, no. 1, International Council on Systems Engineering, 2016, pp 23912406.
60.Rhodes, D.H. and Ross, A.M. Esd 411: Concept design and tradespace exploration. Course material, 2014. [Online; accessed 2018-03-27].
61.Ross, A.M., McManus, H.L., Rhodes, D.H. and Hastings, D.E. Revisiting the tradespace exploration paradigm: Structuring the exploration process. AIAA 2010 Space Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010, pp 114.
62.Various. Example mate projects, 2008. SEAri Working Paper Series, WP-2008-5-2, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Online; accessed 2017-11-13].
63.Ross, A.M. and Hastings, D.E. The tradespace exploration paradigm. INCOSE International Symposium 2005. International Council on Systems Engineering, 2005, pp 113.
64.Ross, A.M., Hastings, D.E., Warmkessel, J.M. and Diller, N.P. Multi-attribute tradespace exploration as front end for effective space system design. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2004, 41, (1), pp 2028.
65.Spaulding, T. Mateing: Exploring the wedding tradespace. SEAri Working Paper Series, WP-2002-1-1, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002. [Online; accessed 2017-11-13].
66.Ross, A.M. Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design as a Value-centric Framework for Space System Architecture and Design. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003.
67.Holland, J.P. Engineering for resilience. AIAA SciTech Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, U.S., 2016.
68.Mavris, D.N., Balchanos, M., Sung, W. and Pinon, O.J. A data mining and visual analytics perspective on sustainability-oriented infrastructure planning. Data Mining and Big Data. Springer International, 2016, pp 330341.
69.Mavris, D.N., Pinon, O.J. and Fullmer, D.J. Systems design and modeling: A visual analytics approach. Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 2010.
70.Jandel, M., Bivall, P., Hammar, P., Johansson, R., Kamrani, F. and Quas, M.J. Visual analytics: Perspectives on the field of interactive visualization. Tech. rep., FOI, FOI-R-4200-SE, Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
71.Mullainathan, S. and Thaler, R.H. Behavioral economics. NBER Working Papers 7948, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 2000.
72.Bondt, W.F.M.D. and Thaler, R.H. Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective. NBER Working Papers 4777, National Bureau of Economic Research, U.S., 1994.
73.Barberis, N. and Thaler, R. A survey of behavioral finance. NBER Working Papers 9222, National Bureau of Economic Research, U.S., 2002.
74.INCOSE. First INCOSE workshop on the evolution of human-systems integration. Tech. rep., Human-System Integration Working Group, Florida Institute of Technology, U.S., 2016.
75.Department of Defense. Digital engineering initiatives by the DoD. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (ODASD), 2019. [Online; accessed 2019-03-17].


A holistic engineering approach to aeronautical product development

  • I. Staack (a1), K. Amadori (a2) and C. Jouannet (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed