Reforming the Defense Equipment Technical Management System Driven by MBSE and the Digital Thread

Authors

  • Dan Yao
  • Junxiao Sun
  • Zhenyu Lei
  • Yiran Ma
  • Feng Hu
  • Shuangjiang Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6981/FEM.202511_6(11).0007

Keywords:

MBSE; Digital Thread; Systems Engineering; Configuration Management; Requirements Traceability; Reliability Growth; FRACAS; TRL/MRL.

Abstract

Document-centric technical management shows systemic bottlenecks for complex equipment across the life cycle, including unstable requirements, frequent interface changes, configuration drift, and weak quality closures. This paper proposes a five-element architecture-Process, Organization, Data, Tools, and Metrics-driven by MBSE (Model-Based Systems Engineering) and the Digital Thread, and builds a governance framework coupled to SRR/PDR/CDR/TRR, the three baselines (functional/allocation/product), and TRL/MRL. We elaborate three key mechanisms-configuration and change control, requirements traceability and interface management, reliability growth and FRACAS closure-and provide implementation guidelines on top-level design and governance, toolchain and data management, and staged pilots. Using illustrative simulated data, we demonstrate KPI improvement paths and dashboard styles to show operability. The approach can improve requirements stability and configuration conformance, reduce interface change rate and late-phase defects, shorten lead time, and lay the foundation for in-service data and digital twins as well as AI-enabled requirement quality assessment, defect prediction, and decision support.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] INCOSE. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities [M]. 5th ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2023.

[2] ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015. Systems and software engineering-System life cycle processes [S]. Geneva: ISO, 2015.

[3] Office of the Secretary of Defense. DoD Digital Engineering Strategy [R]. Washington D.C.: U.S. DoD, 2018.

[4] NASA. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook [M]. Washington D.C.: NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev2, 2016.

[5] OMG. SysML v1.6 Specification [S]. Needham: Object Management Group, 2019.

[6] GAO. Technology Readiness Assessment Guide [R]. GAO-20-48G, 2020.

[7] DoD. Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook [R]. Washington D.C.: OSD, 2017.

[8] GEIA. GEIA-STD-0009: Reliability Program Standard for Systems Design, Development, and Manufacturing [S]. Arlington: SAE/GEIA, 2008.

[9] IEC 61508:2010. Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems [S]. Geneva: IEC, 2010.

[10] GJB 9001C-2017. Quality management systems for equipment – Requirements [S]. Beijing: State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense, 2017.

[11] GJB 5000A-2008. Military software capability maturity model [S]. Beijing: COSTIND, 2008.

[12] MIL-HDBK-61A. Configuration Management Guidance [S]. Washington D.C.: DoD, 2001.

[13] IEC 60300-3-5:2001. Reliability management-Guide to FMECA [S]. Geneva: IEC, 2001.

[14] SAE JA1000/1:2014. Reliability Program Standard Implementation Guide [S]. Warrendale: SAE, 2014.

[15] ISO 10007:2017. Quality management-Guidelines for configuration management [S]. Geneva: ISO, 2017.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-13

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Yao, D., Sun, J., Lei, Z., Ma, Y., Hu, F., & Li, S. (2025). Reforming the Defense Equipment Technical Management System Driven by MBSE and the Digital Thread. Frontiers in Economics and Management, 6(11), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.6981/FEM.202511_6(11).0007