KR102315400B1 - Method for designing combat management system architecture - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture, and more particularly, designing a ship battle management system architecture based on a Lean Six Sigma methodology.

Description

Architectural design method for warship combat management system

The present invention relates to a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture, and more particularly, to a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture that enables the design of a ship battle management system architecture based on a Lean Six Sigma methodology.

Six Sigma activities are being promoted to improve quality in various fields of manufacturing. In the case of manufacturing, quality is improved by reducing the range of fluctuations in manufactured products.

From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, Motorola started the Six Sigma movement to dramatically reduce the defect rate in the manufacturing process. At the same time, it has the effect of gaining consumer trust. Recently, six sigma has been introduced in various fields ranging from manufacturing as well as service industries such as IT, telecommunication, finance, and medical service industries.

In particular, in the case of the service industry, it is difficult to quantify quality, but in the process of interacting with customers, the elements that make up service quality are defined and efforts are being made to improve it. Even in the case of manufacturing, there is a tendency to develop DFSS (Design for Six Sigma) activities to eliminate defects from the design stage, recognizing that there is a limit to removing defects found in the mass production stage and reducing the range of product variation.

DFSS is a design methodology developed by GE based on the belief that if quality improvement is considered from the R&D stage during product development, the six sigma quality level can ultimately be secured. The reason for designing by applying Six Sigma from the design stage is that the quality of a product depends largely on the R&D stage such as design rather than the production process, so it is difficult to achieve the Six Sigma level if quality is not secured at the design stage.

Lean is a method for accelerating speed management by smoothing value flow through waste removal and increasing process efficiency. Lean Six Sigma is a methodology that maximizes corporate value by achieving the fastest improvement in customer satisfaction, cost, quality, process speed, and capital recovery through the combination of Lean and Six Sigma, eliminating unnecessary waste or non-value-added work. It can be said that it is effective when applied to the task of improving the business process.

The ship battle management system is operated in a special space called a battleship, and it is necessary to design the system considering the limited space and poor operating environment. In the case of an export frigate combat management system, in order to compete with overseas advanced companies in the global market, it is essential to develop a product that is suitable for the operating environment of each country, guarantees quality, and has price competitiveness.

For this reason, global companies are striving for quality innovation by applying various methodologies, and recently, there is a trend to improve product quality by applying Lean Six Sigma from the design stage.

Therefore, the technology that enables the design of the battle management system architecture by applying the Lean Six Sigma methodology that has been proven effective in various fields in designing a battle management system suitable for export environments with availability, reliability, and maintainability will be developed. There is a need.

Therefore, the present invention has been proposed to solve the above problems, and it is a Lean Six Sigma methodology that has been proven effective in various fields in designing a battle management system suitable for export environments with availability, reliability, and maintainability. It is intended to provide a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture that enables the design of a battle management system architecture by applying it.

In addition, the present invention is to provide a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture that enables increased space utilization and improved reliability compared to the existing battle management system configuration when designing a new warship battle management system architecture.

Objects of the present invention are not limited to those mentioned above, and other objects not mentioned will be clearly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention belongs from the following description.

The ship battle management system architecture design method according to the present invention for achieving the above object designs the ship battle management system architecture based on the Lean Six Sigma methodology.

In addition, the ship combat management system architecture design method according to the present invention, after selecting a Lean Six Sigma task, establishing a development strategy to achieve the goal of the selected task, defining the task scope; Measurement that selects measurable indicators, establishes goals by analyzing process capabilities based on the results of the development of an electromotive force combat management system, and discovers and prioritizes potential causal variables affecting the selected measurable indicators step; an analysis step of collecting and analyzing data according to the priority of the latent causal variable, and selecting a core causal variable; an improvement step of establishing an improvement strategy for each factor with respect to the selected key cause variable, establishing an optimal solution through an optimization process, and verifying the result; and a management step of establishing a management plan by selecting management items affecting the selected measurable index.

In addition, the warship battle management system architecture design device according to the present invention designs the ship battle management system architecture based on the Lean Six Sigma methodology.

According to the present invention, it is possible to design a battle management system architecture by applying the Lean Six Sigma methodology, which has been proven effective in various fields in designing a battle management system suitable for export environments with availability, reliability, and maintainability.

In addition, according to the present invention, when designing a new warship battle management system architecture, it is possible to increase space utilization and improve reliability compared to the existing battle management system configuration.

Effects of the present invention are not limited to those mentioned above, and other effects not mentioned will be clearly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art from the following description.

1 is a flowchart showing the steps of performing a Lean Six Sigma methodology to be applied to the present invention.
2 is a flowchart illustrating a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 3 is a view for showing an example of the call task selection of the requirement analysis in the defining step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 4 is a view for showing an example of the definition of the scope of work through the upper process map in the definition step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 5a is a view for showing an example of utilizing the CE diagram in the measurement step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 5b is a view for showing an example of prioritizing the X's factor by utilizing a function deployment matrix (FDM) in the measurement step of the method for designing a warship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention;
Figure 6a is a view for showing an example of the weight factor 2-Sample t Test performance results in the analysis step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 6b is a view for showing an example of the MTBF factor 2-Sample t Test performance results in the analysis step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
7 is a view for showing an example of an alternative creation result for the _{X 2} and X ₄ factors in the improvement step of the method for designing a warship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
8A is a diagram illustrating an example of a power supply module redundancy design method in an improvement step of a warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 8b is a view for showing an example of a multi-function console type design method in the improvement stage of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Figure 9 is a view for showing an example of the implementation of the improvement according to the optimal alternative in the improvement step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to the embodiment of the present invention.
10 is a diagram illustrating an example of an improved MTBF calculation result using Relex in the improvement step of the method for designing a warship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
11 is a block diagram illustrating an apparatus for designing an architecture for a warship combat management system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Objects and effects of the present invention, and technical configurations for achieving them will become clear with reference to the embodiments described below in detail in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. In describing the present invention, if it is determined that a detailed description of a well-known function or configuration may unnecessarily obscure the gist of the present invention, the detailed description thereof will be omitted. And the terms to be described later are terms defined in consideration of donation in the present invention, which may vary depending on the intention or custom of the user or operator.

However, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments disclosed below and may be implemented in various different forms. Only the present embodiments are provided so that the disclosure of the present invention is complete, and to fully inform those of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention belongs, the scope of the invention, the present invention is defined by the scope of the claims will only be Therefore, the definition should be made based on the content throughout this specification.

On the other hand, throughout the specification, when it is said that a certain part is "connected" with another part, it is not only "directly connected" but also "indirectly connected" with another member interposed therebetween. include In addition, when a part "includes" a certain component, this means that other components may be further provided without excluding other components unless otherwise stated.

In the past, various quality innovation techniques such as TPM (Total Productivity Management) and PASS (Propose, Analyze, Solve, Sustain) were used as quality innovation methodologies. The broad purpose pursued by this quality innovation methodology is similar, but in the case of the TPM methodology, it is a bottom-up method to improve problems that occur in the field. Although it has strengths in terms of efficiency, it has a problem of staying in partial optimization. On the other hand, in the case of the PASS methodology, the six sigma process is simplified to solve the problem in four steps, and the basic procedure is a six sigma methodology developed in a form suitable for the domestic SME environment, centering on the improvement tools presented in 6 sigma. can be seen as similar to

As such, there are various methodologies for quality innovation, but they do not provide various statistical techniques for each process, from task establishment to verification and control stage after completion, and do not support efficient decision-making.

In the present invention, a Lean Six Sigma technique is applied to design a warship battle management system architecture. The battle management system mounted on export-type frigates is suitable for the operating environments of countries around the world, and in order to compete with overseas advanced companies in the global market, quality is guaranteed, and price competitiveness is essential. The battle management system consists of a number of equipment such as multi-function consoles, system cabinets, interlocking groups, and warplanes, and is distributed throughout the ship, such as the battle command room, equipment room, and bridge, so it is necessary to design it in consideration of the crew's operating environment. In addition, all equipment constituting the battle management system should be designed by considering availability, reliability, maintainability, etc. and meeting customer requirements.

Hereinafter, a method and apparatus for designing a warship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.

1 is a flowchart showing the steps of performing a Lean Six Sigma methodology to be applied to the present invention.

In the present invention, DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control), which is a typical methodology of Lean Six Sigma, was applied, largely defining step (S101), measuring step (S103), analyzing step (S105), improving step (S107) and a management step (S109) and sequentially implemented.

First, in the definition step (S101), it is an activity of selecting a Lean Six Sigma project and defining the goal and scope of the project in detail, and proceeds in three steps: project selection, project definition, and project approval.

The measurement step (S103) is a step of selecting a measurable index Y's and prioritizing potential X's factors affecting Y's. Confirmation of Y's, identification of current level, and discovery of potential X's are carried out.

The analysis step (S105) is a step of collecting and analyzing data according to the priority of the latent causal variables (X's) to determine the main vital factor X's to be executed in the subsequent improvement step (S107). Data collection, data analysis and selection of Vital Few X's are carried out.

The improvement step (S107) is a step of establishing an actual improvement plan of the project, deriving an optimal plan, carrying out improvement activities, and verifying the result. It proceeds to the steps of establishing improvement strategy, optimizing Vital Few X's and verifying the results.

The management step (S109) is an activity of establishing a systematic management system for establishing, executing and managing a plan by selecting management items and completing the project in order to continuously and stably maintain the performance of improvement. It proceeds in the steps of establishing a management plan, executing the management plan, and documenting/sharing it.

Figure 2 is a flow chart showing a method for designing a warship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 3 is a call to the analysis of requirements in the definition step of the warship combat management system architecture design method according to the embodiment of the present invention It is a view for showing an example of task selection, and FIG. 4 is a view for showing an example of the definition of the scope of work through the upper process map in the definition step of the method for designing the architecture of the warship combat management system according to the embodiment of the present invention .

This ship combat management system architecture design method is implemented based on the five steps of the Lean Six Sigma methodology described in FIG. ) and the management step (S109).

definition stage

The definition step (S201) proceeds in the order of task selection (S2011), development strategy derivation (S2013), and task scope definition (S2015).

First, as shown in Fig. 3, the customer's response (Voice of Customer, VOC) and the response of business stakeholders (Voice of Business, VOB) are collected, and based on this, the customer's Critical Customer Requirement (CCR) is determined. derive Based on the derived results, Critical to Quality (CTQ) is established in connection with management goals and strategies.

In order to derive a development strategy, SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis is conducted as shown in <Table 1> below to analyze internal environmental factors based on strengths and weaknesses compared to overseas competitors, and to analyze the external environment as opportunities and threats. Analyze the current situation by classifying it as a threat. Through analysis for each situation, a development strategy from four perspectives (SO, ST, WO, WT) can be derived.

In the following, among the four perspectives according to <Table 1>, two development strategies are presented: ① new development and standardization of the battle management system architecture for frigates and small ships, ② the design of a smaller/lighter architecture compared to the existing battle management system. The description will be limited to selected cases.

Thereafter, by defining an upper process map, input and output elements of a higher level can be selected, and a target level for each index item can be defined. In addition, the upper process map can define the scope of project work, and because it allows a complex process to be viewed in a simple and visual structure, it has the advantage of making it easy for internal and external people to understand the scope of work and process.

measurement step

The measurement step (S203) proceeds in the order of selecting a measurable index (S2031), identifying the current level and analyzing the process capability (S2033), establishing a target (S2035), and prioritizing the potential cause variable (S2037).

A measurable index Y's is selected based on the index items defined in the definition step (S201) above (S2031).

The following <Table 2> is an example showing the results of defining the selection and operation of Y's, and the weight of the Combat Management System (CMS) and the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) were selected as the measurement items for Y's.

Next, the current level and process capability are analyzed through the data collection activity of the selected measurable index Y's (S2033).

On the other hand, <Table 3> below is an example showing the results of collecting the values of Y1 and Y2 based on the development result of the ΟΟΟ battle management system that has been developed among the domestically developed battle management systems, and the Y1 value is 3578.62 kg. , the Y2 value is confirmed to be 212hr.

In <Table 3>, the target level values of CMS weight and MTBF of Project Y's were defined on the basis of 6 sigma, and the current process capability was performed by qualitative analysis through technical data analysis.

However, since the shape of the previously developed battle management system is not the same as the shape of the export type frigate battle management system, the CMS weight and CMS MTBF of the ΟΟΟ battle management system measured for the current process capability analysis were recalculated based on the export type frigate shape. . The basic shape of the export-type frigate battle management system was designed based on the configuration of the existing system, including 6 multi-function consoles, 2 system cabinets, and 18 interlocking units. The weight of the main components constituting the battle management system was calculated based on the previously developed system, with the multi-function console 290 kg, the system cabinet 430 kg, and the interlocking stage 30 kg.

Next, a goal is established (S2035).

Previously, according to the development strategy derived in the definition step (S201), the target level for Y's is to be indexed based on a 30% reduction in the ship displacement of export-type frigates from 3000 tons to 2000 tons of the existing domestically developed frigates. Based on this, the target level for Y's was defined as 30% reduction in CMS weight (Y1) and 30% improvement in MTBF time (Y2) compared to the existing combat management system based on 6 sigma.

As a result, the total weight of the CMS was 3140 kg and the MTBF time was estimated to be about 270 hr. At this time, in the case of CMS MTBF time, the Relex tool, a reliability prediction data calculation program, was used in the same way as in the existing system.

According to the above results, the current sigma level calculated based on the CMS weight and the CMS MTBF time is shown in Table 4 below.

formula output result CMS weight

=

=

4.2

CMS MTBF

=

5.26

Next, the potential cause variable X's factor affecting the project Y's is discovered and prioritized (S2037).

First, all possible causes are discovered through ideas, and benchmarking methods, Cause & Effect (C-E) diagrams, and Functional Deployment Matrix (FDM) can be used. In the present invention, as an example, a description will be made based on the case of identifying the X's factor affecting Y's by using the C-E diagram.

Figure 5a is a view for showing an example of using the CE diagram in the measurement step of the ship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention, using the CE diagram from the viewpoint of control factors, environmental factors, technical factors This is the result of identifying the X factor related to the weight of the CMS component. Meanwhile, although not shown separately, the X factor related to the CMS MTBF time can also be identified.

Based on the C-E diagram results related to the CMS weight and CMS MTBF time, the X's factor is prioritized using a functional development matrix (FDM), and the result is shown in FIG. 5b.

analysis phase

The analysis step (S205) proceeds in the order of data collection and analysis (2051), and selection of a key cause variable (S2053).

First, data is collected and analyzed based on the priority result of the X's factor selected in the measurement step (S203).

First, a data collection plan is established to collect data according to the priority of the analysis factor X's. The following <Table 5> is a data collection plan according to priority X's, which is only an example, and is not limited thereto.

Hereinafter, a detailed collection method of each data through the analysis tool will be described based on the <Table 5>.

In the case of the qualitative data, X ₁ , X ₄ , and X _{5 factors, X 1} and X ₄ were selected as the core cause variables, that is, the main vital factor X, according to the opinions of in-house experts _{, and the quantitative data X 2} , X ₃ Factors were verified using an analysis tool.

First, the change in weight and MTBF for _{the X 3} power redundancy factor was verified according to the data collection result. In the same system, a 2-sample t test analysis method was applied to verify the effect with/without power redundancy, and Minitab was used as the analysis tool. For the data for analysis, standardization data and reliability analysis report of 4 types of combat management systems that have been developed previously were used, and this provides a reference value in case redundancy of all power sources is not included. Assuming that a redundant module is included in relation to power redundancy, a total of 4 kg, such as 2 kg of weight and 2 kg of cabinet assembly, was calculated when adding a module to the existing standardization data. calculated.

In order to check whether power redundancy is the Vital Few X factor that affects CMS weight, the null hypothesis is established that "there is no change in system weight due to power redundancy", and the alternative hypothesis is "There is a change in system weight due to power redundancy" ' and then proceed with the analysis. First, based on the collected data, the normality test is performed by dividing the case in which the power redundancy function is included and the case in which the power redundancy function is not included. As a result of testing for normality using Minitab, the P_Value value was 0.420 when the redundancy module was not applied, and the P_Value value was 0.419 when the redundancy module was applied. Next, we test the equality of variance of the data. Since the data follow a normal distribution, the F-test statistic was applied when testing for equality of variance. As a result of testing for equality of variance with Minitab, the P_Value value of the F-test statistic was 0.983, which was greater than 0.05, confirming that it had equal variance. Since the data collected based on the previously analyzed results follow a normal distribution and have equal variance, a 2-Sample t Test is performed. The 2-Sample t Test is a method of testing whether two population means are the same in two populations that do not affect each other through the mean of samples sampled from each population.

Figure 6a is a view for showing an example of the weight factor 2-Sample t Test performance results in the analysis step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

As shown in Figure 6a, the null hypothesis was adopted because the P_Value value was 0.962, which is greater than 0.05 as a result of performing the 2-Sample t Test. was confirmed.

Thereafter, the influence of the X3 factor on MTBF time is checked. In order to check whether the power redundancy is the Vital Few X factor that affects the CMS MTBF time, the null hypothesis is established that “there is no change in the MTBF time due to power redundancy”, After establishing the alternative hypothesis, "there is a change in MTBF time due to power redundancy," analysis proceeds. Existing data collected in relation to MTBF provides a reference value when power redundancy is not included. If the power redundancy function is included, the value is recalculated through the Relex tool, and the normality test is performed by distinguishing two situations. As a result of testing the normality of the collected data, the P_Value value was 0.184 when the redundancy module was not applied, and the P_Value value was 0.183 when the redundancy module was applied.

Next, we test the equality of variance of the data. Since the data follow a normal distribution, the F-test statistic was applied when testing for equality of variance. Since the data collected based on the previously analyzed results follow a normal distribution and have equal variance, a 2-Sample t Test is performed.

Figure 6b is a view for showing an example of the MTBF factor 2-Sample t Test execution results in the analysis step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

As shown in FIG. 6b , as a result of performing the 2-Sample t Test, the P_Value value was 0.03, which is smaller than 0.05, so the alternative hypothesis was adopted. That is, it can be confirmed that there is a change in MTBF time due to power redundancy, and the X ₃ factor is selected as the Vital Few X factor.

Through the data analysis process as described above, it is possible to select a key cause variable, that is, Vital Few X's, as shown in Table 6 below.

<Table 6> According, X _1, X ₄ factors quantitative verification impossible were selected as the Vital Few X via an in-house expert group meeting, in the case of X _2, X ₃ factors available quantitative data analysis leveraging a Minitab tools to the Correlation analysis, correlation regression analysis, and 2-Sample t Test were performed. Through this analysis process, the X2 factor was selected as the CMS weight, and the X3 factor was selected as the Vital Few X factor in the CMS MTBF category, respectively.

improvement steps

The improvement step (S207) proceeds in the order of establishing an improvement strategy for each factor (S2071), selecting an optimal solution (S2073), and verifying the result (S2075).

The following <Table 7> is an example of the improvement strategy establishment result for the Vital Few X item.

In _{the case of factor X 1} , a strategy was established to maintain the current design, but to change the structure design by applying aluminum materials or a monochromatic structure. In _{the case of factor X 2} , an improvement strategy was established by designing a system structure that can reduce the amount of equipment to reduce the weight of the CMS, and in _{the case of factor X 3} , a method for installing power redundancy module after selecting equipment capable of power redundancy was established did. X ₄ parameters were established for improved strategies for reducing the quantity equipment to change the physical architecture in conjunction with Factor X2.

When an improvement strategy is established, alternatives for each Vital Few X are drawn, obstacle factors and risk assessment for each alternative are carried out. The following <Table 8> is an example of an alternative derivation result for Vital Few X.

In _{the case of the X 1} factor, there is no separate alternative because only the material and housing design changes were adopted in the current design, and 2-3 alternatives were established for the _{X 2} , X ₃ and X _{4 factors, respectively.}

As for the potential causes _{, factors X 2} and X ₄ , the design items were interrelated, so the design for each alternative was carried out at the same time.

_{7 is a view for showing an example of the alternative creation result for the X 2} and X ₄ factors in the improvement stage of the method for designing the architecture of the warship battle management system according to the embodiment of the present invention, and three established proposals are presented.

Next, alternative evaluation of the previously selected three alternatives was performed, and the Must/Want Matrix was used as an alternative evaluation tool. The following <Table 9> is an example of the X2 factor optimization alternative evaluation result.

Two options were selected as optimal alternatives through the evaluation of the expert group. In case 2, since the interlocking end is removed from the existing system configuration, the function of the removed interlocking end must be performed by other components, which may increase the design complexity. While preliminary research on some technologies such as pre-prototype development is required to eliminate risks caused by increased design complexity, it is the most efficient in terms of weight and material cost reduction, so it can be applied to various classes in the future and can secure price competitiveness at the same time 2 were selected from

As a result of performing these alternative evaluation steps, the optimal alternatives for each X factor were selected as shown in <Table 10>.

The power redundancy module was reflected in the design of the integrated interlocking device component of the system cabinet according to the derivation of the _{X 3} factor among the alternatives selected in <Table 10>, and the reflected result is shown in FIG. 8A.

8A is a diagram illustrating an example of a power supply module redundancy design method in an improvement stage of a warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

In addition, the shape change of the multi-function console was suggested according to the lack of space in the system cabinet during the physical architecture design in the _{X 4 factor, and two forms were designed as shown in FIG. 8B by adding a space utilization plan.}

Figure 8b is a view for showing an example of a multi-function console type design method in the improvement step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

The result of designing the export-type frigate battle management system architecture based on the optimal alternative by this process is shown in FIG. 9 .

Figure 9 is a view for showing an example of the implementation of the improvement according to the optimal alternative in the improvement step of the warship battle management system architecture design method according to the embodiment of the present invention.

According to the improvement implementation, the MTBF of the combat management system was modeled using the Relex Tool, and the modeling result was calculated as 316 hr, and the calculation result is shown in FIG. 10 .

10 is a diagram illustrating an example of an improved MTBF calculation result using Relex in the improvement step of the method for designing the architecture of a warship combat management system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

As a result of performing simulations reflecting the improvement implementation results, the total weight of the combat management system was reduced from 3140kg to 2600kg by 17.2% compared to the existing configuration, and the sigma (σ) level was improved from 4.2σ to 5.07σ. In the case of MTBF, it was increased by 17% from 270 hr to 316 hr, and it was confirmed that it was improved from 5.26σ to 5.69σ.

According to the result, the current sigma level calculated based on the CMS weight and the CMS MTBF time is shown in Table 11 below.

formula output result CMS weight

=

=

5.07

CMS MTBF

=

5.69

management phase

The management step (S209) is a step for continuously and stably maintaining the performance of the improvement obtained through the improvement step (S207), and proceeds in the order of selecting a management item (S2091) and establishing a plan (S2093).

First, FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis), a failure type and impact analysis tool, was used to identify management items. Through FMEA, the types of failures that may occur during the development process were identified and the effects of failure types were clarified, and the level of risk related to the failure types was quantified to prioritize improvement. In addition, risk assessment for each type of failure was performed to identify and apply actions that can be taken before a risk occurs to minimize development risk. The following <Table 12> is an example of the result of identifying management items using FMEA.

Next, we identify key management items and actions that can have an impact on Objective Y's of the project at each stage of the development process. The identified results are documented through the management plan as shown in Table 13 below.

This management plan is a document that standardizes management items and methods so that improvements can be continuously maintained. It summarizes the system to be used in the development process and describes the management method. Through this, it can be expected that the task goal Y's can be achieved when developing the system in the future.

Finally, by identifying and documenting design reflection elements, execution departments and related products for each development stage, improved results can be reflected in future execution departments, and acquired knowledge can be stored and shared.

11 is a block diagram illustrating an apparatus for designing an architecture for a warship combat management system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

11, the ship combat management system architecture design device 10 according to the embodiment of the present invention is a definition unit 11, a measurement unit 13, an analysis unit 15, an improvement unit 17 and a management unit ( 19).

The definition unit 11 derives a development strategy by analyzing the current situation based on SWOT analysis, and defines the scope of work through the upper process map (SIPOC).

At this time, the definition unit 11 receives the customer's response (V0C) and the business stakeholder's response (VOB) before deriving the development strategy, and based on this, derives the customer's core requirement (CCR) to achieve the management goal and key quality characteristics (CTQ) associated with the strategy can be established. Accordingly, the definition unit 11 may select a task and derive a development strategy through SWOT analysis. Alternatively, as the selected task is directly input to the definition unit 11, a development strategy may be derived through SWOT analysis.

The measurement unit 13 selects measurable indicators such as the weight of the Combat Management System (CMS) and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), and discovers and prioritizes potential causal variables affecting the measurable indicators.

At this time, the measurement unit 13 discovers potential causal variables that affect measurable indicators based on any one of a benchmarking method, a Cause & Effect (CE) diagram, and a Functional Deployment Matrix (FDM), Based on the results, potential causal variables can be prioritized using a function development matrix (FDM).

The analysis unit 15 selects a core causal variable by collecting and analyzing data based on the priority result of the potential causal variable by the measuring unit 13 .

The improvement unit 17 selects an optimal solution based on the key cause variable selected by the analysis unit 15 and verifies the result. In this case, the optimal solution can be selected through an optimization process after establishing an improvement strategy for each factor with respect to the key causal variable.

The management unit 19 selects major management items to continuously and stably maintain the obtained improvement performance, and identifies the management items and measures for each development process step by step.

As described above, each device included in the warship battle management system architecture design device 10 may operate based on machine learning.

As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to efficiently design an export-type frigate combat management system architecture by applying the DMAIC process of the Lean Six Sigma methodology, and it is possible to derive a result showing an improved level compared to the basic design shape. can

In the present specification and drawings, preferred embodiments of the present invention have been disclosed, and although specific terms are used, these are only used in a general sense to easily explain the technical content of the present invention and help the understanding of the present invention. It is not intended to limit the scope. It will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention pertains that other modifications based on the technical spirit of the present invention can be implemented in addition to the embodiments disclosed herein.

Claims (9)

In the method of designing an architecture for a warship battle management system,
receiving, by the Ministry of Justice, customer responses and business stakeholder responses to the existing warship battle management system architecture;
The definition unit derives the customer's core requirements based on the inputted customer response and the inputted business stakeholder response, and based on the derived customer's core requirements, establishes the frigate small size and light weight, which are the main quality characteristics. to do;
selecting, by the measurement unit, the weight and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of the battle management system, which are measurable indicators for achieving the frigate small size and light weight;
The measurement unit establishes a target by analyzing the process capability for the weight and MTBF of the combat management system based on the result of the development of the electromotive force combat management system, and a number of potential influences on the weight and MTBF of the battle management system excavating and prioritizing causal variables;
collecting and analyzing, by an analysis unit, data according to the priority of the latent causal variables, and selecting a plurality of core causal variables from among the latent causal variables;
establishing, by an improvement unit, a plurality of improvement strategies corresponding to the selected key cause variables, and establishing a plurality of optimal improvement strategies through an optimization process for the established improvement strategies; and
and verifying, by the improvement unit, the improvement implementation result by simulating the weight and MTBF of the battle management system to which the established optimal improvement strategies are applied,
The potential cause variables are the change in the weight and MTBF of the equipment according to the design of the internal structure of the equipment constituting the battle management system, the change in the weight and MTBF of the equipment according to the quantity of the equipment, and supply to the equipment Changes in the weight and MTBF of the interlocking stage according to the power redundancy, changes in the weight and MTBF of the equipment according to the change in the physical architecture of the equipment, and the change in the weight and MTBF of the equipment according to the change in the functional architecture of the equipment including,
The key cause variables include whether the weight of the equipment changes according to the design of the internal structure of the equipment constituting the battle management system, whether the weight of the equipment changes according to the quantity of the equipment, MTBF according to the redundancy of the power supply A ship battle management system architecture design method, characterized in that it includes whether the weight of the equipment and the MTBF change according to the change of the physical architecture of the equipment.
delete According to claim 1,
The core requirement of the customer is a ship battle management system architecture design method, characterized in that it is derived by analyzing the input customer response and the input business stakeholder response using SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) technique.
delete According to claim 1,
The potential causal variables are: A method of designing an architecture for a warship combat management system, characterized in that it is discovered based on any one of a Bench Marking method, a Cause & Effect (CE) diagram, and a Functional Deployment Matrix (FDM). delete delete delete delete

Images