KR20200120452A - Method for designing combat management system architecture based on lean 6 sigma - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for designing naval combat management system architecture and, more specifically, to design a naval combat management system architecture based on Lean Six Sigma. The method comprises: a definition step; a measurement step; an analysis step; an improvement step; and a management step. Therefore, the device can improve the reliability when designing a novel combat management system architecture.

Description

Ship battle management system architecture design method based on Lean 6 Sigma {METHOD FOR DESIGNING COMBAT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE BASED ON LEAN 6 SIGMA}

The present invention relates to a ship combat management system architecture design method, and more particularly, to a ship combat management system architecture design method that enables the ship combat management system architecture to be designed based on the Lean Six Sigma methodology.

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

From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, Motorola started the 6 Sigma movement and drastically reduced the defect rate in the manufacturing process. In the case of GE, which applied 6 Sigma at the company level in the 1990s, the product defect rate decreased and operating profit increased. At the same time, it had the effect of gaining consumer trust. Recently, 6 Sigma has been introduced in various fields ranging from manufacturing industries such as IT, telecommunications, finance, and medical service industries, as well as service industries, and accordingly, not only improving product quality but also improving service quality is in trend.

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

DFSS is a design methodology developed by GE based on the idea that if quality improvement is considered from the R&D stage when developing a product, the quality level of 6 Sigma can ultimately be secured. The reason for applying 6 Sigma to design from the design stage is that the quality of the product is largely influenced by the research and development stage such as design rather than the production process, so it is difficult to achieve the level of 6 sigma unless quality is secured at the design stage.

Lean is a way to accelerate speed management by smoothing the value stream through waste removal and increasing the efficiency of the process. Lean 6 Sigma is a methodology that maximizes corporate value by achieving improvement in customer satisfaction, cost, quality, process speed, and capital recovery at the fastest speed through the combination of lean method and 6 sigma, eliminating unnecessary waste or non-value-added work. And, it can be said to be effective if it is applied to tasks that improve work processes.

The ship combat management system is operated in a special space called a battleship, and a system design is required in consideration of limited space and poor operating environment. In the case of the battle management system for export frigates, in order to compete with advanced foreign companies in the global market, product development that is suitable for the operation environment of each country, quality is guaranteed, and price competitiveness must be preceded.

For this reason, global companies are striving for quality innovation by applying various methodologies, and recently, there is a trend to improve the quality of products by applying Lean 6 Sigma from the design stage.

Therefore, technology that enables us to design a combat management system architecture by applying the Lean 6 Sigma methodology that has been proven effective in various fields in designing a combat management system suitable for the export environment with availability, reliability, and maintenance will be developed. There is a need.

Accordingly, the present invention has been proposed to solve the above-described problems, and uses a Lean 6 Sigma methodology that has been proven effective in various fields in designing a combat management system suitable for the export environment and ensuring availability, reliability and maintenance. It is to provide a ship battle management system architecture design method that can be applied to design a battle management system architecture.

In addition, the present invention is to provide a method for designing a ship combat management system architecture to increase space utilization and improve reliability compared to the existing combat management system configuration when a ship combat management system architecture is newly designed.

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 from the following description.

The ship battle management system architecture design method according to the present invention for achieving the above object designs a ship battle management system architecture based on the Lean 6 Sigma methodology.

In addition, the ship battle management system architecture design method according to the present invention comprises: a definition step of selecting a Lean 6 Sigma task, establishing a development strategy for achieving the selected task objective, and defining a work scope; Measurement to identify and prioritize potential causal variables that affect the selected measurable indicators after selecting measurable indicators, analyzing process capability based on the result of developing an electromotive combat management system, and establishing targets step; An analysis step of collecting and analyzing data according to the priority of the potential cause variable and selecting a key cause variable; An improvement step of establishing an improvement strategy for each factor for the selected core cause variable, establishing an optimal plan and verifying a result through an optimization process; And a management step of establishing a management plan by selecting a management item that affects the selected measurable indicator.

In addition, the ship combat management system architecture design apparatus according to the present invention designs a ship combat management system architecture based on the Lean 6 Sigma methodology.

According to the present invention, it is possible to design a combat management system architecture by applying the Lean 6 Sigma methodology, which has been proven effective in various fields in designing a combat management system suitable for an export environment with availability, reliability, and maintainability.

In addition, according to the present invention, when a ship battle management system architecture is newly designed, space utilization compared to the existing battle management system configuration can be increased and reliability can be improved.

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

1 is a flow chart showing the steps of performing the Lean 6 Sigma methodology to be applied to the present invention.
2 is a flowchart illustrating a method of designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of selecting a call task by analyzing requirements in a definition step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of defining a scope of work through an upper process map in a definition step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
5A is a diagram illustrating an example of using a CE diagram in a measurement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
5B is a diagram illustrating an example of prioritizing X's factor using a function deployment matrix (FDM) in a measurement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
6A is a diagram illustrating an example of a result of performing a weight factor 2-Sample t Test in an analysis step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
6B is a diagram illustrating an example of a result of performing an MTBF factor 2-Sample t Test in an analysis step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a result of creating an alternative for factors X ₂ and X ₄ in an improvement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 8A is a diagram illustrating an example of a method for designing a redundant power supply module in an improvement stage of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 8B is a diagram illustrating an example of a multifunctional console type design method in an improvement stage of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
9 is a diagram illustrating an example of implementation of an improvement according to an optimal alternative in an improvement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a result of calculating an improved MTBF using Relex in an improvement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.
11 is a block diagram illustrating an apparatus for designing an architecture of a ship battle 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 apparent with reference to the embodiments described below in detail together with the accompanying drawings. In describing the present invention, when it is determined that a detailed description of a known function or configuration may unnecessarily obscure the subject matter of the present invention, a detailed description thereof will be omitted. In addition, terms to be described later are terms defined in consideration of donation in the present invention, which may vary according to the intention or custom of users or operators.

However, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments disclosed below, and may be implemented in various different forms. These embodiments are provided only to make the disclosure of the present invention complete, and to fully inform the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains, and the present invention is defined by the scope of the claims. It just becomes. Therefore, the definition should be made based on the contents throughout this specification.

On the other hand, in the entire specification, when a part is said to be "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, it means that other components may be further provided, rather than excluding other components unless specifically stated to the contrary.

In the past, various quality innovation techniques such as TPM (Total Productivity Management) and PASS (Propose, Analyze, Solve, Sustain) were used as the quality innovation methodology. The purpose of this quality innovation methodology is similar, but in the case of the TPM methodology, it is a bottom-up method that improves problems occurring in the field, and is promoted through individual improvement activities centered on workers in the field to solve the problem immediately. Although it has strengths in terms of efficiency, there is a problem of staying in partial optimization. Meanwhile, in the case of the PASS methodology, the 6 Sigma process is simplified to solve the problem in 4 steps, and the basic procedure is 6 Sigma as a methodology developed in a form suitable for the domestic SME environment centering on the improvement tools suggested in 6 Sigma. It can be seen as similar to

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

In the present invention, a Lean 6 Sigma technique is applied to design a ship battle management system architecture. The combat management system mounted on export-type frigates is suitable for the operating environment of countries around the world, quality is guaranteed, and price competitiveness is essential to compete with foreign advanced companies in the global market. The combat management system is composed of a number of equipments such as multi-functional consoles, system cabinets, interlocking units, and exhibitors, and is distributed and deployed throughout the ships such as the battle command room, equipment room, and bridge, so design considering the operating environment of the crew is required. In addition, all equipment constituting the combat management system must be designed in consideration of availability, reliability, and maintainability, and satisfying customer requirements.

Hereinafter, a method and apparatus for designing a ship 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 flow chart showing the steps of performing the Lean 6 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 6 Sigma, was applied, and largely, the definition step (S101), the measurement step (S103), the analysis step (S105), and the improvement step (S107) And a management step (S109), which are sequentially performed.

First, in the definition step (S101), a project of Lean Six Sigma is selected, and the goal and scope of the project are specifically defined. It proceeds to three stages of project selection, project definition, and project approval.

The measuring step (S103) is a step of selecting a measurable index Y's and prioritizing potential X's factors affecting Y's. It proceeds to the stage of confirming Y's, identifying the current level, and discovering potential X's.

The analysis step (S105) is a step of collecting and analyzing data according to the priority of the latent cause variable (X's), and determining the main Vital Few X's to be executed in the subsequent improvement step (S107). It proceeds to data collection, data analysis and Vital Few X's selection.

The improvement step (S107) is a step in which an actual improvement plan of the project is established to derive an optimal plan, and improvement activities are performed to verify the result. It proceeds to the steps of establishing an improvement strategy, optimizing Vital Few X's, and verifying the results.

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

FIG. 2 is a flow chart showing a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 3 is a call for analysis of requirements in the definition stage of the method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of task selection, and FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of defining a scope of work through an upper process map in the definition step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention. .

This ship battle management system architecture design method is implemented based on the five steps of the Lean Six Sigma methodology described in FIG. 1, and similarly, the definition step (S201), the measurement step (S103), the analysis step (S105), and the improvement step (S107) ) And the management step (S109).

Definition stage

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

First, as shown in Fig. 3, the customer's response (Voice of Customer, VOC) and the business stakeholder's response (Voice of Business, VOB) are collected, and based on this, the critical customer requirements (CCR) are determined. To derive. Based on this derived result, we establish Critical to Quality (CTQ) linked to management goals and strategies.

To derive a development strategy, SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis is conducted as shown in <Table 1> to analyze internal environmental factors based on strengths and weaknesses compared to overseas competitors, and external environment It analyzes the current situation by classifying it as a threat. Through the analysis of each situation, it is possible to derive a development strategy of four perspectives (SO, ST, WO, WT).

In the following, two of the SO development strategies according to <Table 1>: ① new development and standardization of the battle management system architecture for frigates and small ships, and ② design of a smaller/lightweight architecture compared to the existing battle management system. The description is limited to the selected case.

Thereafter, a higher level process map can be defined to select a higher level input element and an output element, and a target level for each index item can be defined. In addition, the upper-level process map can define the scope of the project work, and since it allows the complex process to be viewed in a simple and visual structure, it has the advantage of being able to easily understand the work scope and process to internal and external people.

Measuring steps

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

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

The following <Table 2> is an example of the result of defining Y's selection and operation, and the weight of CMS (Combat Management System) and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) were selected as the measurement items of 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, the following <Table 3> is an example of the result of collecting the values of Y1 and Y2 based on the development result of the ΟΟΟ combat management system that has been developed among the domestically developed combat management systems, and when viewed through this, the Y1 value is 3578.62kg , Y2 value is confirmed as 212hr.

Table 3 above defines the CMS weight of Project Y's and the target level value of MTBF based on 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, the CMS weight and CMS MTBF of the ΟΟΟ battle management system measured for the analysis of the current process capability were recalculated based on the shape of the export-type frigate. . The basic shape of the export-type frigate battle management system was designed based on the configuration of the existing system, such as 6 multi-functional consoles, 2 system cabinets, and 18 interlocking units, and various display devices and other supporting equipment were excluded. The weight of the main components that make up the combat management system was calculated as the weight of each of the multifunctional console 290kg, the system cabinet 430kg, and the interlocking end 30kg based on the developed system.

Next, a target 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 on the basis that the ship displacement of the export-type frigate decreases by about 30% from 3000 tons of the existing domestic frigate to 2000 tons. Based on this, the target level for Y's was defined as a 6-sigma standard for reducing CMS weight by 30% (Y1) and improving MTBF time by 30% (Y2) compared to the existing combat management system.

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

The current sigma level calculated based on the CMS weight and the CMS MTBF time according to the above result is shown in Table 4 below.

Calculation formula Calculation result CMS weight

=

=

4.2

CMS MTBF

=

5.26

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

First, through ideas, all possible causes are discovered. Benchmarking methods, C-E (Cause & Effect) diagrams, and FDM (Functional Deployment Matrix) 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 using a C-E diagram.

5A is a diagram for illustrating an example of using a CE diagram in a measurement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention, in terms of control factors, environmental factors, and technology factors using the CE diagram. 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.

Prior to this, the X's factor is prioritized using a function development matrix (FDM) based on the C-E diagram results related to the CMS weight and the CMS MTBF time, and the results are as shown in FIG. 5B.

Analysis stage

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

First, data is collected and analyzed based on the priority result of the factor X's 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. Table 5 below 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 an analysis tool will be described based on <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 key causal variables, that is, the main Vital Few X factors, according to the opinion of the in-house expert, and the quantitative data X ₂ and 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, the 2-sample t-test analysis method was applied to verify the effect when power redundancy was included or not, and Minitab was used as the analysis tool. The data for the analysis were standardized data and reliability analysis report of four types of combat management systems that were already developed, and this provides a reference value when the power redundancy is not included. Regarding power redundancy, it is assumed that a redundant module is included, and when a module is added, a total of 4kg, such as 2kg and cabinet assembly weight, was added to the existing standardized data and calculated. Was calculated.

To confirm whether power redundancy is a Vital Few X factor that affects the CMS weight, the null hypothesis was established as "there is no change in system weight due to power redundancy", and the alternative hypothesis was "There is a change in system weight due to power redundancy. ", and then proceed with the analysis. First, based on the collected data, normality test is performed by dividing the case with and without the power redundancy function. As a result of testing 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 equal variance of the data. Since the data follow a normal distribution, the F-test statistic was applied to test for equal variance. As a result of testing equal variance with Minitab, it was confirmed that the P_Value value of the F test statistic was 0.983, which was greater than 0.05, and thus equal variance. Since the collected data 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.

6A is a diagram illustrating an example of a result of performing a weight factor 2-Sample t Test in an analysis step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.

As shown in Fig. 6a, as a result of performing the 2-Sample t Test, the P_Value value is 0.962, which is greater than 0.05, so the null hypothesis was adopted. Even though the weight difference of the system due to power redundancy exists, the effect on the weight of the entire system is insignificant. Confirmed that.

Thereafter, the effect of the X3 factor on the MTBF time is checked. To confirm whether the power redundancy is the Vital Few X factor that affects the CMS MTBF time, the null hypothesis was established as "there is no change in the MTBF time due to power redundancy." The alternative hypothesis was established as "there is a change in MTBF time due to power redundancy", and then the analysis proceeds. Existing data collected in relation to the MTBF provides a reference value when power redundancy is not included. In the case of including the power redundancy function, the value was recalculated through the Relex tool, and normality test was performed by classifying the 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. Therefore, it was confirmed that the collected data follows the normality.

Next, we test the equal variance of the data. Since the data follow a normal distribution, the F-test statistic was applied in the test for equal variance. As a result of the test, the P_Value value is 0.804, which is greater than 0.05, indicating that it has equal variance. Since the collected data based on the previously analyzed results follow a normal distribution and have equal variance, a 2-Sample t Test is performed.

6B is a diagram illustrating an example of a result of performing an MTBF factor 2-Sample t Test in an analysis step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.

As shown in FIG. 6B, the alternative hypothesis was adopted because the P_Value value was 0.03, which is less than 0.05 as a result of performing the 2-Sample t Test. That is, it could be confirmed that there is a change in the 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, a key cause variable, that is, Vital Few X's, can be selected as shown in Table 6 below.

According to <Table 6>, factors X ₁ and X ₄ that cannot be quantitatively verified were selected as Vital Few X through an in-house expert group meeting, and factors X ₂ and X _{3 that} are capable of quantitative data analysis were selected using the Minitab tool. Correlation analysis, correlation regression analysis, and 2-Sample t Test were performed. Through this analysis process, factor X2 was selected as the CMS weight and factor X3 was selected as the Vital Few X factor in the CMS MTBF category.

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).

Table 7 below is an example of the results of establishing an improvement strategy for the Vital Few X item.

In the case of X ₁ factor, but to maintain its design and established a strategy of changing the structure design of an aluminum material or a mono chuckling structure apply. In the case of X ₂ factors in the case of X ₃ factors were established to improve strategies to system architecture designed to reduce the equipment quantity, for CMS weight loss, after selection of the equipment, the power redundancy as possible to establish a plan to mount a redundant power module I did. Factor X ₄ was linked with factor X ₂ to establish an improvement strategy to reduce the number of equipment by changing the physical architecture.

When an improvement strategy is established, an alternative for each Vital Few X is derived and a risk assessment for each obstacle and each alternative is conducted. Table 8 below is an example of the result of deriving an alternative for Vital Few X.

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

The potential causes X ₂ and X ₄ factors were designed for each alternative at the same time because the design items were interrelated.

FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of the result of creating an alternative for factors X ₂ and X ₄ in the improvement stage of the ship battle management system architecture design method according to the embodiment of the present invention, and three established plans are presented.

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

Two options were selected as the best alternative through evaluation of an expert group. In the case of the second plan, 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 lead to restrictions that increase design complexity. While preliminary research on some technologies, such as pre-prototype development, is required to eliminate the risk of increasing 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 secure price competitiveness at the same time. Two proposals were selected from.

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

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

FIG. 8A is a diagram illustrating an example of a method for designing a redundant power supply module in an improvement stage of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.

In addition, the shape of the multifunctional console was proposed in accordance with the lack of space in the system cabinet during physical architecture design in factor X ₄ , and a space utilization plan was added to design it in two forms as shown in FIG. 8B.

FIG. 8B is a diagram illustrating an example of a multifunctional console type design method in an improvement stage of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.

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

9 is a diagram illustrating an example of implementation of an improvement according to an optimal alternative in an improvement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.

According to the implementation of the improvement, 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 a result of calculating an improved MTBF using Relex in an improvement step of a method for designing a ship battle management system architecture according to an embodiment of the present invention.

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

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

Calculation formula Calculation result CMS weight

=

=

5.07

CMS MTBF

=

5.69

Management stage

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 management item selection (S2091) and plan establishment (S2093).

First, FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis), a tool for analyzing failure types and effects, was used to identify management items. Through FMEA, the types of failures that may occur in the development process were identified and the effects of the failure types were clarified, and the priority of improvement was selected by quantifying the risk associated with the failure types. In addition, risk assessment for each type of failure was performed to identify and apply actions that can be taken before the risk occurs, thereby minimizing development risk. <Table 12> is an example of the result of identifying management items using FMEA.

Next, the main management items and actions that can provide an impact on the target Y's of the project are identified for 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 in order to continuously maintain the improved matters. It summarizes the system to be used in the progress of the development process and describes the management method. Through this, it can be expected that project goal Y's can be achieved in future system development.

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

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

Referring to FIG. 11, the ship combat management system architecture design apparatus 10 according to an embodiment of the present invention includes 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 analyzes the current situation based on the SWOT analysis to derive a development strategy, and defines the scope of work through the upper process map (SIPOC).

At this time, before deriving a development strategy, the Justice Department 11 receives the customer's response (V0C) and the business stakeholder's response (VOB), and based on this, the management goal by deriving the customer's core requirements (CCR). And key quality characteristics (CTQs) linked to strategies can be established. Accordingly, the definition unit 11 may select a task and derive a development strategy through SWOT analysis. Alternatively, as the task selected in the definition unit 11 is directly input, 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 that affect the measurable indicators.

At this time, the measurement unit 13 discovers a potential cause variable that affects the measurable indicator based on any one of a bench marking method, a cause & effect (CE) diagram, and a functional deployment matrix (FDM), The results can be prioritized using the function development matrix (FDM).

The analysis unit 15 selects a key cause variable by collecting and analyzing data based on the priority result of the potential cause variable by the measurement unit 13.

The improvement unit 17 verifies the result by selecting an optimal plan based on the core cause variable selected by the analysis unit 15. At this time, the optimal plan can be selected through an optimization process for establishing an improvement strategy for each factor for the key cause variable.

The management unit 19 selects major management items to continuously and stably maintain the results of the obtained improvement, and identifies management items and actions taken for each stage of the development process.

Each of the devices included in the vessel combat management system architecture design apparatus 10 described above 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 6 Sigma methodology, and as a result of the design, a result showing an improved level compared to the basic design shape can be derived. I can.

In the present specification and drawings, a preferred embodiment of the present invention has been disclosed, and although specific terms are used, these are merely used in a general meaning to easily explain the technical content of the present invention and to aid understanding of the present invention. It is not intended to limit the scope. It is obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art that other modifications based on the technical idea of the present invention can be implemented in addition to the embodiments disclosed herein.

Claims (4)

In the ship battle management system architecture design method,
A definition step of selecting a Lean Six Sigma task, establishing a development strategy for achieving the goal of the selected task, and defining a work scope;
Measurement to identify and prioritize potential causal variables that affect the selected measurable indicators after selecting measurable indicators, analyzing process capability based on the result of developing an electromotive combat management system, and establishing targets step;
An analysis step of collecting and analyzing data according to the priority of the potential cause variable and selecting a key cause variable;
An improvement step of establishing an improvement strategy for each factor for the selected core cause variable, establishing an optimal plan and verifying a result through an optimization process; And
And a management step of establishing a management plan by selecting management items affecting the selected measurable indicators.
The method of claim 1,
The above development strategy is:
A ship battle management system architecture design method based on Lean 6 Sigma, characterized in that it is established based on SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis.
The method of claim 1,
The above measurable indicators are:
A ship battle management system architecture design method based on Lean Six Sigma, characterized by the weight of the Combat Management System (CMS) and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF).
The method of claim 1,
The potential cause variable is.
A ship battle management system architecture design method based on Lean Six Sigma, 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).

Images