Introduction to

System Architecture

Architecture to Value

Ed Crawley
January 5, 2007
Rev 2.0

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

1
 Today’s Topics

z Objectives, Expectations and Administration

z Key Ideas
– Architecture
– Architecting
– the Product Development Process (PDP)
z Form of Systems
z Intro to Upstream Processes
– Technology infusion

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

2
 The Opportunity
z We conceive, design, implement
and operate complex and
sometimes unprecedented
systems
z Do they meet stakeholder
needs? Source: NOAA

z Do they integrate easily, evolve

flexibly, operate simply and
reliably?
z Well architected systems do!
– Link benefit to cost
– High leverage as early design
process
– Source of competitive advantage
Source: NASA

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

3
 Overall Learning Objectives

Students will be able to:

Apply the principles, processes and tools of system

architecture to:

- Structure and lead the early, conceptual phases

of the product development process

- Support the process through development,

deployment, operation and evolution

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

4
 Learning Objectives

y Discuss systems, systems thinking,

products (value and competitive advantage),
the PDP and the “role” of architecting in the
PDP.

y Analyze and critique the architecture of

existing systems, create the architecture of
new or improved systems, and produce the
deliverables of the architect.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

5
 Learning Objectives
y Drive the ambiguity from the upstream
process by defining the context and
boundaries of the system, interpreting
needs, setting goals and defining the
externally delivered functions.
y Create the concept for the system,
consisting of internal function and form,
while thinking “holistically and out of the
box” when necessary.
y Manage the evolution of complexity in the
system so that goals are met and function is
delivered, while the system is
comprehendible to all during its design,
implementation, operation and evolution.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

6
 Learning Objectives

y Challenge and critically evaluate current

modes of architecting, and create new
synthesized modes.

y Develop for themselves the guiding

principles for successful architecting.

To prepare students for their first, second,

and third jobs after SDM.

This is a course in how to think, not what to think

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

7
 Implicit Subject Objectives

z To be synthetic
– Scale up existing knowledge
– Tie together SDM Curriculum

z To encourage a global view

z To learn from best practice in architecture (search)

z To learn from new thought in architecture (re-search)

z To leave you with a set of personalized tools for

architecting

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

8
 Expectations

z Act professionally
z Think creatively
z Work in a scholarly manner
z Speak and write clearly and concisely
z Respond punctually
z Whine little
z Have fun

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

9
 Architecture - Pedagogy

Principles

Roles &
Frameworks Cases Themes
Definitions

Methods &
Tools

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

10
 Master Schedule

Jan: “Architecture 400”

Vocabulary
Architecture
Analysis of architecture - what is architecture?
Sept - Nov: “Architecture 401”
Upstream processes (leading to the product case)
Downstream processes
Cases and critique or architecture
Synthesis of Architecture - how to make good architecture
Dec: “Architecture 537”
Advanced (but important) topics
– Supply chains
– Platforms and product families
– Reuse of legacy elements

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

11
 Schedule, etc.

z IAP vs. Second “Half”

z Detailed IAP schedule
z Syllabus Package
z Opportunity Sets
– 1, 2, 3, 4 in assigned groups
– 5 (Technology Search) in organic groups of
like interest (3±1)
z Texts
z Grading
z Dissemination
z Academic Integrity

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

12
 ¿What is Architecture?

z What do you think?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

13
 Architecture
z The structure, arrangements or configuration of system elements
and their internal relationships necessary to satisfy constraints and
requirements. (Frey)

z The arrangement of the functional elements into physical blocks.

(Ulrich & Eppinger)

z An abstract description of the entities of a system and the

relationship between those entities (Crawley et al.)

z The embodiment of concept, and the allocation of

physical/informational function to elements of form, and definition
of interfaces among the elements and with the surrounding context.
(Crawley)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

14
 Definitions - Analysis and Synthesis

z What do the definitions have in common?

z What distinguishes them? What is the underlying cause

for this distinction?

z Synthesize a definition that works for you, in your job

context.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

15
 Consensus Definition: Architecture1

z The embodiment of concept, and the allocation of

physical/informational function to elements of form, and
definition of interfaces among the elements and with the
surrounding context. (Crawley)

Form
z Consists of:

Function
– Function
– Related by Concept
– To Form
Concept

1 - when I introduce a term and define it, I will underline

on the chart and include it in the glossary
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
16
Concept?
Function?
Form?
Architecture – Civil
Interfaces?
Context?

Several diagrams removed due to copyright restrictions.

Comparing plans for beach house and “Florida” house, from
http://www.coolhouseplans.com

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007 Source - www.coolhouseplans.com 17

Concept?
Function?
Form? Architecture – Mechanical
Interfaces?
Context? Figure by MIT OCW.

Courtesy of Rich Niewiroski Jr.

(http://www.projectrich.com/gallery)

Cable-stayed bridge

Suspension Bridge
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
18
Concept?
Function? Architecture -
Form?
Interfaces? Communications Network
Context?

Supplied with camera Memory Card

Mac

Card Reader USB Port

Software

Wrist Strap
Digital

Digital Camera PC

USB interface cable USB Port

Video cable

Battery

Printer
Video
USB Port

TV/Video

Figure by MIT OCW.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
19
Concept?
Function?
Form?
Architectural - Instructional
Interfaces?
Context?

Courtesy of ENPHO. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
20
 Architecture - Thought Assignment

z What is the architecture of common things? What is the

concept, function, form, interfaces and context?

z What is the architect trying to achieve?

z What makes an architecture “good”?

Try to internalize what constitutes “an architecture.”

This will appear on OS 2 and 4.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

21
 Architecting

z An architect works by applying:

– Relevant modes of thought, including creative and

critical thinking

– The approaches of architecting, including holism,

focus, etc.

– The principles, processes and tools of architecting

– And a lot of wisdom and experience!

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

22
 Suggested Process for Critical
Thinking
Figure by MIT OCW.

z Opportunity, challenge, or reference example

identified in context
z Thinker develops an approach option
z Thinker surveys other approach options, then
compares the “surveyed” options with each other
and the “developed” approach option
z Thinker synthesizes a context-appropriate “best”
option

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

23
 Example: Critical Thinking

z We just did this when talking about architecture:

– We identified the opportunity when I asked you for

your definition of architecture
– You developed your own definition
– We listed several others and compared them
– I asked that you synthesize one that works for you in
your context, and I offered one as the working
definition for the class

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

24
 Holism
Figure by MIT OCW.

z Of the Whole
To think holistically is to encompass all aspects of the
task at hand, taking into account the influences and
consequences of anything that might interact with the
task.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

25
 ¿ Example: What is the Whole?
(while architecting a product or system)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

26
 Holism – Assignment (for life)

z Become a holistic thinker!

z Read - Talk - Think - Listen
z Holistic thinking exercise
– Be ready for each class
– Be ready for each day of your life!
– Focus on Global Forces in business environment

z What should the foci be this month?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

27
 Principles, Methods, Tools
Figure by MIT OCW.

z Principles are the underlying and long enduring

fundamentals that are always (or almost always) valid.

z Methods are the organization of approaches and tasks

to achieve a concrete end, which should be solidly
grounded on principles, and which are usually or often
applicable.

z Tools are the contemporary ways to facilitate process,

and sometimes applicable.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

28
 Examples: Principles, Methods, Tools

Time Scale Science Engineering

Science

Principle

Method

Tool

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

29
 Examples: Principles, Methods, Tools
Architecture Product Product
Of Products Development Organizations
Processes

Principle

Method

Tool

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

30
 A Principles – Example

z Every system operates as an element of a larger system

and is itself composed of smaller systems
N+1 System
N System

N-1 System

How could you improve this principle?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

31
 Principles – Assignment
z A Journal of Architecting Principles should be
completed by each student
– Capture ideas from all SDM subjects, other readings
and from life experience
– As a target, codify 8 - 15 principles of system
architecture (i.e. truths that are fundamental and
almost always valid)
– Due at the end of the subject (in Dec.)
– Should contain
– The principle (descriptive and prescriptive)
– Attribution
– Short description or application
z Principle No. 1 should be: What is good architecture.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
32
 Principle Submission

z “Tag Line Version”

z Descriptive version
z Prescriptive version
z Text which explains the principle, how it would apply to
your enterprise
z Citation where it came from

z So “every systems operates as a part of a larger system,

…” is what: descriptive or prescriptive? What would the
other one be?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

33
 The Product Development Process

z The inclusive process of creating a new or modified

product, bringing it to “market” and supporting its life-
cycle

z It is important to understand the role of architecting in

the PDP, and the commonality of good practice in our
professions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
34
 PDP - Assignment (#3)
Determine what is common to all PDP’s, and what causes
them to be different:
z Compare each of the PDP’s that you benchmark and
identify the elemental “steps” (there may be 20 to 40 of
these). Identify the steps that are common to all or most
of your PDP. Also examine the sequence of these steps.
z Synthesize the common PDP steps into one reference
process.
z Examine the differences between the reference process
and the original benchmark examples. Try to explain
why the differences occur.
z Identify the contribution of architecting to the PDP, and
the influence of the other parts of the PDP on
architecting.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
35
 Other Definitions – Assignment (#1)

z Without clear definitions, statements like “architecting

complex product/systems to deliver value” will just be
stratego-babble
z Your group should develop a consensus definition of:
– System
– Complex
– Value
– Product

z Principle/Method/Tool (give examples, not definitions)

Cite 1-3 references and your synthesized definition.
Give an illustrative example. 36
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
 Architecture

z Consists of: Form

Function
– Function
– Related by Concept
– To Form Concept

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

37
 Form - Defined
z The physical/informational embodiment which
exists, or has the potential to exist

z Is what the system “is”

z The sum of the elements, which are segments (of

the whole of) the form

z The structure of form - the formal relationships

among the elements

z Is a system/product attribute

Form is Elements + Structure

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
38
 Form - Described

z Is created by the architect

z Is in a solution specific domain
z Can be decomposed into physical/informational
elements - the decompositional view
z Elements are connected at interfaces. The
interfaces define the structure - the structural view
z Is the thing that executes function
z Is the thing that is eventually implemented (built,
written, composed, manufactured, etc.)
z Is the thing that is eventually operated (run,
repaired, updated, retired, etc.)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

39
 Objects

Object

z Defined: An object is that which has the potential of

stable, unconditional existence for some positive
duration of time
z Can be physical: visible or tangible and stable in form
z Can be informational: anything that can be apprehended
intellectually
z Objects have states (which can be changed by
processes)
z Objects are linked to nouns

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

40
 Decomposition of a System
Level Figure by MIT OCW.

0 SYSTEM

...

1 (down) Element 1 Element 2

z Decomposition is the division into smaller constituents

z The system object at level 0 decomposes to the element
objects at level 1
z The element objects at level 1 aggregate to the system
z This is the whole - part relationship, so common that it
has its own symbol
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
41
 Op Amp - Decompositional View

Vin
R1
Amp

-5 R2 Ground
Op Amp R1 R2
V Interface

5 Input Output -5 V +5V

V Interface Interface Interface Interface
Vout
Plus connectors? Ground?

Could you build and amp from such information?

Could you understand how it is laid out?
Could you understand how it works?
Not much real information in the decompositional view!
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
42
 ¿ What is the Form of Simple Systems?

z Each group should examine one of the examples,

and describe the form of the system

z Describe the elements objects that make up the

system object

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

43
 Example Systems:

z Paper coffee cup

z Pen (ball point or felt tip)
z Notebook or pad of paper
z Stop sign
z Simple code

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

44
 “Software” Code

n=0
start at first Ø
while Ø remains without an X
print X at location of Ø
n=n+1
end_of_while
write n

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

45
 Elements of Form
z For simple physical systems, the elements for form can
be broken down until the smallest useful “atomic unit” is
reached: paper cone, plastic tube, sheet of paper
z For simple information systems, the elements of form
are a bit more abstract, but it is most useful to stop
when a coherent instruction is reached
z For instructional systems, the instruction is an element
of form - what the instruction does is its function, and
will be discussed in the next lecture
– n = n+1
– STOP

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

Courtesy of ENPHO. Used with permission. 46
 Abstraction
Figure by MIT OCW.
z Abstraction defined as:
– expression of quality apart from the object
– having only the intrinsic nature rather than the form

z Abstraction can be used in both function and form

z Abstraction can be used to characterize and hide more

detailed structure and behavior within them, allowing
simpler representation of the “surface”

z Examples: cup, pen, routine_name

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

47
 Decompositional View of a
Simple System
Level

0 SYSTEM

...
1 (down) Part 1 Part 2

z Theoretically 5-9 elements (7+/- 2), actually 2 to about 9-12

z At level 1 we encounter real or atomic parts (a matter of somewhat
arbitrary definitions)
z Tree structure is symbolic of the decompositional view, and suggests
what element aggregate to which higher lever element
z Does not represent the actual structural connectivity of the elements
(the structure)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
48
 Decompositional View of a
Simple System - Example
Level

0 Pad of Paper

n 1 or 2
1 (down) Paper Spiral
Covers
sheets wire

z At level 1 we encounter real or atomic parts (a matter of

somewhat arbitrary definitions)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

49
 Decompositional view of a
Medium System
Level
SYSTEM
0
…

1 (down) Sub-System 1 Sub-System 2

... …
2 (down) Part 1.1 Part 1.2 Part 2.1 Part 2.1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

50
 Decompositional View of a
Medium System

z Theoretically 25-81 elements (7+/-2)2 , actually about

9-12 to about 60-90
z At level 2, we encounter atomic parts
z Least ambiguous objects are defined at levels are 0
and 2
z Intervening level 1 might be real subsystems
modules, abstractions, or both
z Actual structural connectivity can occur at either
level 1 or 2

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

51
 Decompositional View of a
More Complex System

z Theoretically 125+ elements (7-2)3 , actually about 60-

90+
z Same drawing as a medium system - except level 2
is no longer made up of atomic parts, but rather
further abstractions or modules
z There may be many layers below level 2, which an
observer at level 0 barely understands
z Actual structural connectivity can occur at any level

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

52
 ¿ What is the Structure of Form of
Simple Systems?

z Each group should examine one of the examples,

and describe the form of the system

z Describe the structure among the element objects

that make up the system object

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

53
 Example Systems:

z Paper coffee cup

z Pen (ball point or felt tip)
z Notebook or pad of paper
z Stop sign
z Simple code

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

54
 Classes of Structural Connections

z Connections that are strictly descriptions of

form:
– Some notion of spatial location, proximity or topology
(e.g. is next to)
– Some notion of previous assembly/implementation
process (e.g. “connected to” means long ago a
connecting process took place)
z Connections that are description of function
while operating

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

55
 Spatial/Topological Structural Connections
z One kind of information that can be encoded in
structural links is relative spatial location (above,
below, to the right of, aligned with, etc.) plus topology:
– Is contained in, surrounded
by, encompasses, encircles
– Overlaps with, shares part of
– Is adjacent to, touches
– Is separate from (near, far,
no apparent relation at all)
z Issues of Form, representing
positioning that has taken
place in the past
This information is conventionally in a schematic or layout drawing
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
56
 Assembly/Implementation Structural
Connections
z Another kind of information that can be encoded in
structural links is information about how the objects
were assembled, manufactured, coded, written, etc.:
– Is bonded to, welded to,
soldered to, glued to
– Is bolted, fastened
– Pressed against, inserted
– Is compiled with
z Issues of form, represent
implementation that has taken
place in the past
This information is conventionally in an assembly drawing
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
57
 Whistle - Objects as
Elements of Form Whistle

Bump

Channel
Step Hole
Channel
Ramp
Bump

Cavity Step
wall
Ramp

Hole

Cavity
wall

Figure by MIT OCW. Star

Can also be Ring

represented as a list

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007 610

58
 Structure of Elements - Whistle
Step Hole
Channel

Bump
Cavity
Figure by MIT OCW. wall
Ramp

Product/system boundary

Hole

Bump Channel Ramp Step Cavity

What do these lines mean??

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
59
 Op Amp - Decompositional - List
Amp:
Amp Op Amp
R1
R2
Op Amp R1 R2
Ground Ground Int.
Interface Input Int.
Output Int.
Input Output -5 V +5V -5 V Int.
Interface Interface Interface Interface +5 V Int.
Plus connectors? Ground? Connectors?
Gound?

Alternative to graphical representation of the

decompositional view is the list representation

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

60
 Op Amp - Structural View - Graphical
Input
interface
Vin
R1 Ground
Interface
R1
Ground

-5 R2 -5V
Op Amp R2
V interface
+5V
interface
5
V
Vout

Output
interface

What do these lines mean?

Is this structure describing form?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
61
 Op Amp - Structural View - List?

Input
interface
Ground
Amp: ?????????
Interface
R1
Ground
Op Amp
R1
-5V R2
Op Amp R2
interface Ground interface
+5V Ground?
interface Input Int.
Output Int.
-5 V Int.
Output
interface
+5 V Int.
Connectors?

What is an appropriate way to represent structural

information shown in graphic representation in a list
representation?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
62
 Software Code - Decompositional View

Procedure
if array[ j ] > array [ j+1 ] then Conditional_exchange

temporary = array [ j+1 ]

if array[ j ] > array [ j+1 ] then
array[ j+1 ] = array [ j ] end_if
array[ j ] = temporary
temporary = array [ j+1 ]
end if

array[ j+1 ] = array [ j ]

array[ j ] = temporary

Software is often already in a list representation.

However for more complex code, something like a
decompositional view is often all that is easily available
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
63
 Software Code - Structural View

if array[ j ] > array [ j+1 ] then

end_if
if array[ j ] > array [ j+1 ] then
temporary = array [ j+1 ]
temporary = array [ j+1 ]
array[ j+1 ] = array [ j ]
array[ j ] = temporary
array[ j+1 ] = array [ j ]
end if
array[ j ] = temporary

For software what is the appropriate way to represent

structure of form in the list and graphical
representations?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
64
 Issues Raised
z How do you identify form independent of function?
z How do you define the atomic part level? For hardware?
For software?
z Can you “decompose” an integral part?
z How do you represent the structural interconnections of
the elements, as opposed to their “membership” in a
system?
z N occurrences of an element - count once or N times?
z Connectors and interface elements - count as a separate
element - or combined with other elements?

Disciplines have their own tradition of representing form

(decomposition and structure), what is it in your discipline?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
65
 Summary - Form
z The physical/informational embodiment which exists, or
has the potential to exist
z The sum of elements (objects) related through structure
z Is a system/product attribute created by the architect
z Is what executes function
z Is implemented and operated
z Is decomposed (potentially in layers), the number of
which determine: simple -to- complicated
z Is decomposed until the atomic part in encountered (a
matter of definition)

Complete description of form requires definition

of both elements and structure
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
66
 Summary to Date

Form

Architecture?

Form = Elements + Structure

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

67
 Upstream Processes

z General
z Technology Infusion
– Finding
– Forecasting
– Transferring
– Infusing

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

68
 Where Does an Architect Find Upstream
Wisdom?

z Customer
market need or opportunity
z Technology
what’s available or might be
z The Company
corporate strategy, competency
z Business Environment
competition, global economic, international
markets, worldwide suppliers, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

69
 Upstream Wisdom From SDM

z Customer - a bit this month, marketing subject, and

system engineering subject

z Technology - some this month, 2 design electives,

informal network, Management of Technology elective

z The Company - some in this subject, System Project

Management, leadership exercises, corporate strategy
elective

z Business Environment - marketing subject, your self

education!

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

70
 Three Questions Central to Technology
Assessment and Infusion

z What is the forecast for the technology?

– Where is it? What can it do?
– What is its readiness?
– When will it be “ready”?
z Does it address a customer need?
– Will it infuse value in the product?
z Can our company exploit the technology?
– Is it within our competence and its extensions?
– Does our organizational strategy support it?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

71
 Finding and Infusing Technology

z Finding Technology
z Understanding, Assessing and
Forecasting
z Transferring
z Infusing

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

72
 Where Do You Find Technology?
z You invent it
z Your existing products
z Competitors’ products
z Your corporate R&D
z Competitors’ corporate R&D
z Universities
z Foreign sources
z Government labs
z Suppliers
z Small companies
z Where else?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

73
 How Do You Find Technology?

z Thinking, reading
z Visits
z Papers, articles, reports
z Conferences, shows
z Personal contacts, networks
z Seminars
z How else?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

74
 Understanding Assessing, Forecasting

z What is it, how does it work?

– New “physics”, manufacturing
– Clever design or combination
z What might it do?
z How does it relate to alternatives?
z How mature is it?
– What combinations of time, money are required
– How much further can existing team take it?
z What is Intellectual Property (IP) status?
z What else?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

75
 Technology Maturation Model

z Single technology

maturity
the “S” curve

time

activity
patent
time
maturity

z Platform Net
technology

time
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
76
 Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)
System Test, Launch
Actual system “flight proven” through successful
& Operations TRL 9 mission operations
Actual system completed and “flight qualified”
TRL 8 through test and demonstration (Ground or
System/Subsystem
Development Flight)
TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in a space
environment
Technology
TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype
Demonstration
demonstration in a relevant environment (Ground
TRL 5
or Space)
Technology Component and/or breadboard validation in
Development relevant environment
TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in
Research to Prove laboratory environment
Feasibility TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function
and/or characteristic proof-of-concept
Basic Technology TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application
Research formulated
TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported

Courtesy of NASA.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007
77
 Transferring Technology

z Corporate alliances and partnerships

z Corporate acquisitions
z Hiring
z Inclusion in supply chain
z Small company as intermediary
z How else?

People are best

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

78
 Infusing Technology
z Into future product thinking - to create new
markets
z Into new platforms - to service new products
z Into new products
z Into existing products

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

79
 Infusion of Non-robust Technology

Selected Developed
for for
Product 2 Product 2

Selected Developed
New
for for
Technology
Product 1 Product 1

Selected Developed
for for
Product 3 Product 3

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

80
 Flexible Infusion of Robust Technology

Selected
for Only
Product 2

Selected Minor
New Robustness
for
Technology Optimization
Product 1
Adjustments
Selected
for
Product 3
Needed

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

81
 Technology Search - Assignment #1

z Form organic groups of 3±1 members of similar

technical interests
z Conduct search for 3 technologies
z Select one, and analyze it relative to existing technology
z Make a recommendation
z Write a memo that can be submitted to your real boss!

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

82
 Assignments for Next Time:

z Opportunity Set 1: Definitions

z Opportunity Set 2a: Form of simple systems
z Holistic thinking: Be prepared to discuss current global
topics in technical/scientific/economic/political spheres,
and their impact on your enterprise
z Thought exercise: what is architecture, what is the
architecture of common things, what is good
architecture?
z Preparation for next class: read readings and be
prepared to come and discuss critically (like in movies
about law and business schools!)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology © Ed Crawley 2007

83