Fig 4 - uploaded by Sirous Yasseri
Content may be subject to copyright.
Interface management processoverview of the main process steps (adopted from ECSS-E-ST-10-24C DIR1; European Space Agency Requirements and Standard Division, 2013)
Source publication
An interface refers to any logical or physical relationship required to integrate the boundaries between subsystems or between subsystems and their environment. The present paper combines a systems engineering (SE) approach and design structure matrix (DSM) for the interface management
of the subsea production systems in the design, fabrication and...
Citations
... Reasonableness of production and construction plan [63] 8 Standardization of production and construction processes [47,64] 9 ...
Recently, interface management has been regarded as the key to the success of prefabricated building projects (PBPs) due to its capabilities to manage numerous interfaces caused by PBPs’ inherent geographical and organizational fragmentation. However, the factors influencing the interface management of PBPs are largely unknown and poorly studied. To compensate for this gap, this study aimed to investigate the critical factors influencing interface management in PBPs with quantitative and qualitative methods. Twenty-seven critical factors influencing the interface management of PBPs were identified through a literature review, questionnaire survey, and face-to-face interviews with professionals in the construction industry. A questionnaire survey was sent out to developers, designers, manufacturers, contractors, and consultants in China, and 66 completed questionnaires were received. Results showed the top five critical factors influencing the interface management of PBPs were (1) accuracy of design, (2) timeliness of information communication, (3) timeliness of component production and supply, (4) standardization of design, and (5) definition of work content and scope. The 27 influencing factors of PBPs were further categorized into seven groups via exploratory factor analysis, namely: (1) information communication, (2) trust and cooperation, (3) technical and management capability, (4) organizational integration, (5) standardization, (6) technical environment, and (7) contractual management. Improving these issues will contribute to the successful implementation of PBPs. Finally, combined with relevant literature and expert interviews, the impact of these seven clusters on the interface management of PBPs was discussed. The findings may contribute to deepening the understanding of interface management, reducing unnecessary conflicts and difficulties, and promoting the sustainable development of prefabricated building (PB).
... In developing technology, the maturity assessment uses different tools to measure the overall level of systems readiness, such as Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), Systems Readiness Level (SRL), Integration Readiness Level (IRL). The technology maturity can be used to (1) evaluate the technical risk and maturity of a concept in line with specified goals and requirements, (2) compare technologies, (3) determine if a research and development program is appropriate and, (4) identify the appropriate qualification path for the selected technology (ABS, 2017;Yasseri, 2015). Thereby, these metrics can be used by the designer, project, and systems manager, sanction authorities, and vendors to decide about new subsea systems implantation. ...
This paper is about the influence of safety regulations on the way major accidents are identified and managed. A case study is presented based on the Brazilian experience in subsea processing units. The oil and gas industry is devoting increased interest to subsea processing due to the limitation of easily accessible oil and gas reservoirs. There are more than 48 units already installed in Brazil. Most of the safety requirements in Brazil's E&P policy are based on offshore units. However, for subsea structures, there are different risks, environments, and operational conditions. In 2015, Brazil presented a safety regulation named SGSS (Technical Regulation of Operational Safety Management System of Subsea System). This regulation explicitly addresses risers and introduces only general safety requirements to other subsea installations and equipment. Thus, this paper assesses the Brazilian subsea safety regulation and the results of this policy implementation through the Brazilian Petroleum Regulator (ANP) inspections and incident communications. The example demonstrates the inefficiency of the policy to promote safety. This paper then proposes simplifying regulations, introducing new technology requirements, and a technical committee to improve safety to subsea equipment.
... The main contribution of this paper is the analysis of an entire system, including subsea connections and the installation vessel waiting time. The produced DSM can be used for the integration of the system (Yasseri, 2015). Another contribution of this paper is combining RAM analysis with the system development via the V-model which is discussed next. ...
... The DSM as shown on the left-hand side of Table 4 is re-drawn as Table 8. This is the interface matrix, which can be used to manage the interface issue, (Yasseri, 2015). Note that Umbilicals (A) connected to the umbilical termination assembly, B, which is labeled and it is housed in the manifold. ...
... While connectors for the manifold power/comms jumper, H, and for the SDU-XT, I, (see Table 4) are lumped with the Fig. 12. Contribution to the system unavailability from the system components Table 8 The left-hand side of Table 4 to use for the interface and integration. Off-diagonal terms are the criticality of the interface using the ordinal scale of Figure 13 (Yasseri, 2015). For the evaluation of TRL and IRL see (Yasseri, 2014). ...
Equipment repair and intervention in subsea oil and gas fields are expensive, mainly due to vessel mobilization
time, retrieval, repair, and replacement costs. The loss of revenue due to downtime could also be significant and
the producer could face penalties in not meeting contractual commitments. These costs are part of the life cycle
cost, which must be considered at the design stage. Estimating the reliability and availability of subsea systems at
an early stage of design is important in assuring the quality of the system architecture, which leads to a more
reliable choice of configuration and equipment. Availability analyses should be undertaken very early in the
development process, while the operational concept is still under review, and the choice of components is still to
be finalized. Postponing this assessment could prove to be too costly to improve the availability and dependability.
This paper presents a reliability assessment using a systems engineering framework by combining the system's
requirements and reliability requirements. A Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is employed to map the system and
visualize the inter-relationships (dependencies) between components/subsystems. The DSM is then augmented
with reliability data, including intervention times, to determine the overall system availability. It is also explained
how to use the system's DSM to aid integration and interface management decisions. A case study is
presented to demonstrate this procedure.
... In designating interfaces between two components, the definition of the interactions between these interfaces is important (Yasseri, 2015b). In addition to the transmission of forces, moments and displacements between modules, there is also the transmission of fluid and energy, and data exchange. ...
Systems readiness level (SRL) is a metric defined for assessing progress in the development of systems. The methodologies to estimate SRLs are built on the technology readiness level (TRL), originally developed by NASA to assess the readiness of new technologies for insertion into a system. TRL was later adopted by governmental institutions and many industries, including the American Petroleum Institute (API). The TRL of each component is mathematically combined with another metric, integration readiness level (IRL), to estimate the overall level of readiness of a system. An averaging procedure is then used to estimate the composite level of systems readiness. The present paper builds on the previous paper by Yasseri (2013) and presents case examples to demonstrate the estimation of SRL using two approaches. The objective of the present paper is to show how the TRL, IRL, and SRL are combined mathematically.
The performance of the methodology is also demonstrated in a parametric study by pushing the states of readiness to their extremes, namely very low and very high readiness. The present paper compares and contrasts the two major system readiness levels estimation methods: one proposed by Sauser et al. (2006) for defence acquisition based on NASA's TRL scale, and another based on API's TRL scale. The differences and similarities are demonstrated using a case study.
... Yasseri [42] has extended API adaptation of NSA's TRL to include IRL and SRL. These reflect the reality that technologies do not exist in isolation, but rather they are connected through interfaces in the system architecture [45]. This paper differentiates between the system "readiness" and the system "maturity". ...
This paper explores further and describes the System Readiness Level estimation for means of production in the oil and gas industry, through a case study. The concept as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) originally promoted by NASA and was then adopted by government agencies and industries across the USA and Europe. TRL was adopted by API (API 17N) and tailored for the assessing the readiness of subsea components for inclusion in subsea production systems. The API's TRL has been recently extended by introducing two more metrics namely, the Integration Readiness Level (IRL) and the System Readiness Level (SRL). SRL is a mathematical combination TRL and IRL and is a metric for assessing progress in developing major subsea systems. Standard assessment metrics, such as Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), do not sufficiently evaluate the modern complex systems. Building on the previous publications [43] the SRL calculation method is expanded and expounded by adding a system engineering framework for the process of SRL estimation. Explained in some detail, in this paper, which produces more consistent results. Using an error averaging method, SRL is calculated by combining the TRL of each component with IRL, which expresses the readiness of each of these components to be integrated with other components of the system. To facilitate the calculation the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is used both to visualise components and perform the necessary arithmetic.
... Yasseri [42] has extended API adaptation of NSA's TRL to include IRL and SRL. These reflect the reality that technologies do not exist in isolation, but rather they are connected through interfaces in the system architecture [45]. This paper differentiates between the system "readiness" and the system "maturity". ...
This paper explores further and describes the System Readiness Level estimation for means of production in the oil and gas industry, through a case study. The concept as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) originally promoted by NASA and was then adopted by government agencies and industries across the USA and Europe. TRL was adopted by API (API 17N) and tailored for the assessing the readiness of subsea components for inclusion in subsea production systems. The API's TRL has been recently extended by introducing two more metrics namely, the Integration Readiness Level (IRL) and the System Readiness Level (SRL). SRL is a mathematical combination TRL and IRL and is a metric for assessing progress in developing major subsea systems. Standard assessment metrics, such as Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), do not sufficiently evaluate the modern complex systems. Building on the previous publications [43] the SRL calculation method is expanded and expounded by adding a system engineering framework for the process of SRL estimation. Explained in some detail, in this paper, which produces more consistent results. Using an error averaging method, SRL is calculated by combining the TRL of each component with IRL, which expresses the readiness of each of these components to be integrated with other components of the system. To facilitate the calculation the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) is used both to visualise components and perform the necessary arithmetic.
... This paper uses the Design Structure Matrix (DSM) (Eppinger and Browning, 2012) for this purpose. The interface DSM (Yasseri, 2015) is enriched with reliability data concerning non-graphic characteristics like k, the number of components required for the system to be deemed available i.e. the 'k' in, k-out-of-m systems (NASA, 2011or NSWC-11, 2010, and the calculated reliability. This model is carried forward to later stages of the development when the physical architecture has taken shape, and component-specific failure rate can be obtained or calculated. ...
This paper presents a framework for the availability assessment of subsea distribution systems during the functional design (selection) phase. This framework, which also includes all interface elements, can be started at an early stage when the definition of the system architecture is coarse and generic failure data is available and can be refined as more information becomes available, then maintained as the system ages during the operational phase. The main objective is to present a decision tool for selecting the subsea distribution system with the highest advantage in terms of availability at a very early stage of the design. The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) mapping method is used to represent the system's components and their dependencies, which is then enriched with additional reliability data to calculate availability. A case study of an actual subsea distribution system is used to demonstrate the approach.
... One way to map the SSIV is the design structure matrix (DSM, also known as dependency structure matrix). DSM is a square matrix for visual representation of a system (Eppinger and Browning, 2012;Browning, 2016;Yasseri, 2015b), which shows both components of the system and linkages between them. It is the equivalent of an adjacency matrix in graph theory, and is used in systems engineering and project management to model the structure of complex systems (Eppinger and Browning, 2012;Eppinger et al., 2014), in order to perform system analysis, project planning and organisation design. ...
... concept validation (TRL 0 to 2), technology validation (TRL 3 to 5) and system validation (TRL 6 and 7)) is generally easier than transitioning between classification groups. It was also emphasised that these three scales should be used in the stage-gate decision process to determine the readiness of a project for the advancement to the next phase (e.g. from define phase to execute phase, see Yasseri, 2015b). ...
Systems readiness level (SRL) is a metric for assessing progress in developing major subsea systems. SRL methodology builds on technology readiness levels (TRLs), developed by American Petroleum Institute (API) 17N to assess the readiness of subsea components for insertion. To estimate the level of readiness of a system comprising multiple components in their current state, SRL combines the TRL of each component with another metric called the integration readiness level (IRL). This metric expresses the readiness of each of these components to be integrated with other components of the system. An averaging approach is then used to estimate an overall level of systems readiness if these components were to be used. This paper presents a distillation of experience gained in applying the readiness metrics to subsea systems by the author and others. The methodology for determining the progress of a typical subsea system development, using TRL, IRL and SRL metrics is illustrated using a typical subsea system.
... Determining architecture patterns or signatures and their implications [56,57] Assessing the strategic and economic implications of product architecture [57,58,60,339,[352][353][354][355][356] Using modularity to inform design evolution [55,[59][60][61][357][358][359] Using modularity to inform outsourcing and partnering decisions [49,62,360] Segmenting portfolios [63] Designing for variety, component commonality/reuse, and product platforms/families [38, 39, 44, 64-68, 305, 361-368] Designing for adaptability/flexibility/changeability (often via modularity, real options) [22,43,68,69,304,338,[369][370][371][372][373][374][375] Determination and use of design rules in product design [26,28,58,70,71,376,377] Using design rules and options for mass customization [378][379][380] Standardizing and managing interfaces [57,70,376,381] Designing for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) [382] Designing for sustainability and the environment [316] Synthesizing with other design methods and tools such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Axiomatic Design, and the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) [67,257,356,361,[383][384][385][386][387] Decomposing and optimizing design problems [72,73] Supporting multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) [74][75][76]388] Exploring the conceptual design space [308,383] Managing product knowledge [78] Analyzing product usability [389] Supporting reverse engineering [22,40,390] Integrating systems and infusing new technologies [350,387,391] Analyzing system integration and testing [392] Allocating resources to product modules [393] Industry Instances Selected References research could demonstrate the power of, and explore approaches to formalizing, design rules for hardware products. Additional studies of architecture evolution from a longitudinal perspective would also be helpful. ...
The design structure matrix (DSM), also called the dependency structure matrix, has become a widely used modeling framework across many areas of research and practice. The DSM brings advantages of simplicity and conciseness in representation, and, supported by appropriate analysis, can also highlight important patterns in system architectures (design structures), such as modules and cycles. A literature review in 2001 cited about 100 DSM papers; there have been over 1000 since. Thus, it is useful to survey the latest DSM extensions and innovations to help consolidate progress and identify promising opportunities for further research. This paper surveys the DSM literature, primarily from archival journals, and organizes the developments pertaining to building, displaying, analyzing, and applying product, process, and organization DSMs. It then addresses DSM applications in other domains, as well as recent developments with domain mapping matrices (DMMs) and multidomain matrices (MDMs). Overall, DSM methods are becoming more mainstream, especially in the areas of engineering design, engineering management, management/organization science, and systems engineering. Despite significant research contributions, however, DSM awareness seems to be spreading more slowly in the realm of project management.
Capital projects, such as deepwater offshore oil and gas production systems (SPS), require a large investment, thus high availability to recover the investment is vital. The costs of intervention (recovery of failed equipment, repair, and replacement) and the loss of revenue will add to the problem. Thus, the reliability of the production system must be assured by reliability analyses and testing. A Systems Engineering (SE) approach is described in this chapter that links the client’s reliability needs to the system’s performance, hence permitting the specification of appropriate strategies and procedures for verification and validation while accounting for all constraints, including the costs of maintenance, possible intervention requirements, and downtime, and relates these to the equipment performance that is needed to achieve the desired availability of the SPS. In addition, the possibility of constructing the field in stages and expanding it as needs arise must also be considered. It is shown how to relate the equipment performance to the Client's requirements. The procedure described in this chapter can also assist with project risk management by blending the reliability analyses, testing, and various risk analysis methods for the system verification and validation procedures. The system engineering V-model is augmented by reliability assurance requirements to assure sustained operation by ensuring the robustness and resilience of the production system.
