NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

1 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR USE IN THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY by Eric D. Clark September 2006 Thesis Advisor: John Osmundson Second Reader: David M. Hicks THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503.

2 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE September 2006 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Master s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Analysis and Comparison of Various Requirements Management Tools for Use in the Shipbuilding Industry 6. AUTHOR(S): Clark, Eric D. 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, CA 93943-5000 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) N/A 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE A 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) Requirements are the cornerstone of all contracts for products and services.

3 If requirements are not well defined and managed, the product or service may fail to meet the customer s needs and costs may go up. This is especially true in the shipbuilding industry where the customer has many requirements. Some are clearly defined while many more are undefined. Some requirements have to be generated from the implication of other requirements while even more have to be pulled from other industry or military standards. This amounts to hundreds or thousands of requirements. Without the proper tools, managing all these requirements would be next to impossible. This thesis investigates requirements management Best Practices and relate them to the needs of Systems Engineering in shipbuilding. This thesis also compares and analyzes several requirements management tools to see what may be the best fit for the shipbuilding industry in vessel design.

4 This thesis provides recommendation of a specific requirements management tool and its suggested use. 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 107 14. SUBJECT TERMS Requirements Management, Requirements Development, Systems Engineering, Shipbuilding, Vessel Design, INCOSE 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 ii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iiiApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR USE IN THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY Eric D. Clark Civilian, Northrop Grumman, Avondale, Louisiana , United States Merchant Marine Academy, 1988 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL September 2006 Author: Eric D.

5 Clark Approved by: Dr. John Osmundson Thesis Advisor David M. Hicks Second Reader Dr. David Olwell Chairman, Department of Systems Engineering iv THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vABSTRACT Requirements are the cornerstone of all contracts for products and services. If requirements are not well defined and managed, the product or service may fail to meet the customer s needs and costs may go up. This is especially true in the shipbuilding industry where the customer has many requirements. Some are clearly defined while many more are undefined. Some requirements have to be generated from the implication of other requirements while even more have to be pulled from other industry or military standards. This amounts to hundreds or thousands of requirements. Without the proper tools, managing all these requirements would be next to impossible.

6 This thesis investigates requirements management Best Practices and relate them to the needs of Systems Engineering in shipbuilding. This thesis also compares and analyzes several requirements management tools to see what may be the best fit for the shipbuilding industry in vessel design. This thesis provides recommendation of a specific requirements management tool and its suggested use. vi THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK viiTABLE OF CONTENTS I. A. BACKGROUND ..1 1. What is Systems Engineering?..1 2. Characteristics of Requirements ..2 3. Sources of Requirements ..3 4. Database Management is the Basis of Requirements Management ..4 B. PURPOSE ..4 C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..5 D. BENEFITS OF E. SCOPE AND 1. 2. Methodology ..5 F. ORGANIZATION OF STUDY ..6 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ..7 A. B. DEALING WITH 1. What is Requirements Management?

7 7 2. What is Requirements Development & Analysis? ..10 3. Putting It All Together ..10 C. REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT IN VESSEL DESIGN ..11 D. BENEFITS OF REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT IN VESSEL DESIGN ..11 E. CHAPTER III. TOOLS REVIEW ..15 A. B. ANALYST PRO ..15 1. Capabilities ..16 2. Screen C. CORE ..23 1. Capabilities ..23 2. Screen D. CRADLE 1. Capabilities ..29 2. Screen E. DOORS ..33 1. Capabilities ..34 2. Screen F. CHAPTER IV. COMPARISON OF TOOLS ..39 A. viiiB. PROS AND CONS ..39 1. Analyst Pro ..40 2. CORE ..40 3. Cradle 4. DOORS ..41 C. TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS ..42 1. Decision Matrix (DECMAT)..43 2. Developing a. b. Flowdown ..45 c. d. History ..45 e. Output ..45 f. Groupware ..46 g. Interfacing ..46 h. Usability ..46 i. j. Cost ..46 3. Weighting Criteria ..47 4. Ranking RM Tools ..49 5. Trade-Off Analysis Results ..51 D. CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND A. B.

8 KEY POINTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..53 C. POTENTIAL AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ..55 LIST OF REFERENCES ..57 APPENDIX A. INCOSE RM TOOL SURVEY QUESTIONS ..61 APPENDIX B. VENDORS ANSWERS TO SURVEY QUESTIONS ..67 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ..85 ixLIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Requirements Management Figure 2. Analyst Pro Main Menu Bar..18 Figure 3. Analyst Pro Project Details Info Window..18 Figure 4. Analyst Pro Project Attributes Window..19 Figure 5. Analyst Pro Requirements Figure 6. Analyst Pro Traceability Analysis Matrix Figure 7. Analyst Pro Traceability Analysis Graphical View Window..20 Figure 8. Analyst Pro Documents Figure 9. Analyst Pro Requirements History Figure 10. Analyst Pro Requirements Graphs Figure 11. Analyst Pro Export Wizard Window..22 Figure 12. CORE Element Browser View..25 Figure 13. CORE Element Table Figure 14.

9 CORE Project Explorer showing Hierarchy View..26 Figure 15. CORE Project Explorer showing an N2 Diagram..27 Figure 16. CORE Project Explorer with Element Property Sheet..27 Figure 17. CORE Element Extractor Window..28 Figure 18. Example of Capturing Requirements with Cradle..32 Figure 19. Example of Various Requirements Views in Cradle-WRK..33 Figure 20. DOORS Database Figure 21. DOORS Document View of Figure 22. DOORS Object Properties View..37 Figure 23. DOORS Change Proposal System View..37 Figure 24. Initial DECMAT Matrix for Capture Trade-Off Figure 25. Pairwise Comparison window for Capture Trade-Off Figure 26. Weighted DECMAT Matrix for Capture Trade-Off Figure 27. Initial DECMAT Matrix for full RM Trade-Off Figure 28. Pairwise Comparison window for full RM Trade-Off Figure 29. Weighted DECMAT Matrix for full RM Trade-Off Figure 30.

10 Final DECMAT Matrix for Capture Trade-Off Analysis ..50 Figure 31. DECMAT Sensitivity Analysis for Capture Trade-Off Analysis ..50 Figure 32. Final DECMAT Matrix for full RM Trade-Off Analysis ..50 Figure 33. DECMAT Sensitivity Analysis for full RM Trade-Off Analysis ..51 x THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK xiLIST OF TABLES Table 1. INCOSE RM Survey Answers for Analyst Pro and CORE ..72 Table 2. INCOSE RM Survey Answers for Cradle and DOORS/ERS ..83 xii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK xiiiLIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 3SL Structured Software Systems Limited ACF(s) Access Control File(s) API Applications Program Interface ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange BLOBS Binary Large Objects CAD Computer-Aided Design CAM Computer-Aided Manufacturing CAS3 Combined Arms and Services Staff SCHOOL CASE Computer-Aided Software Engineering CBS Component Breakdown Structure CCB Change Control Board CM Configuration Management CMS Configuration