SYSTEM INTEGRATION

Systems Engineering
ETS Feedback
General comments
Overall, the quality of the papers was good. In most cases, at least one of the tools were
applied in depth and in a way such that meaningful information could be drawn from them.
Often a lot of words were spent describing the application of the tools and an opportunity
was missed to used these words more effectively by discussing the outcome of using the
tool. In general, papers flowed quite well, although many did not build to a convincing
conclusion, which was an opportunity missed. Sources of research were included but often
not referenced in text. Despite some papers not making many design decisions from their
analysis, the application generally gave an in depth description of the system to be used in
later systems analysis.
Indicative comments against the criteria
LO1: adapt the methodologies to describe your project design or system
Excellent-Outstanding
- Applied and discussed at least 2 of the weeks concepts, being: Functional
Allocation, Subsystem Interface and/or Requirements Mapping.
- The description of the system drew meaning which was not necessarily obvious from
the introduction to the system, or the information gained from other peoples papers
(using the tool brought out surprising outcomes)
- The application of the concepts gave insight into the system in some way.
Adequate-Good
- Correct and in-depth application of tools to the project; however, did not use the
application to learn or demonstrate a better understanding of the system.
- In many cases, the way in which the tools were applied to the project was described,
rather than describing/discussing what the application suggested about the system.
Poor-Adequate
- At least one of concepts were applied to the system.
- In some cases, figures such as the functional allocation were not completed in
enough detail to draw meaning from them, or key principles were missing from the
application, such as the system boundary in the subsystem interface diagram.
- In some cases, the application was in a large amount of detail, but the tool was used
incorrectly and ineffectively, suggesting that the author lacked understanding.
LO2: provide evidence or rationales for design decisions and trade-offs
Excellent-Outstanding
- Multiple decisions were made using the application of the concepts. Example
decisions include:
- Because subsystem X, Y and Z rely on subsystem A, the reliability of
subsystem A is the most important, as failure to it will cause failure to the

entire system. Excellent papers went on to describe what this would mean in
terms of finer details, such as material choice.
- When decisions were not clear, trade-offs were discussed to the application of
concept to the project or design choices. Trade-offs included resource allocation,
time, weight, user requirements and functional success.
Adequate-Good
- Only one of design decisions or trade-offs were discussed.
- In some papers, decisions about the project were made and discussed but they did
not directly relate to/come from the application of the subsystem integration analysis.
- Discussion of trade-offs were not clear, or did not stem from the analysis
Poor-Adequate
- If included, design decisions were not justified or clear
- Trade-offs were often not discussed. If they were, it was at a very high level.
- Trade-offs were sometimes discussed at the beginning of the paper but not in relation
to the system.
LO3: use technical knowledge alongside systems approaches to improve outcomes
Excellent-Outstanding
- Interfaces were described and discussed using technical knowledge of the system.
- Units were assigned to the subsystem interactions or the flow of material, information,
energy etc. was discussed.
- A technical knowledge of the system was used to discuss the feasibility of design
choices.
- Function Allocation was completed to a technical level showing an in-depth
understanding of the type of technology required in the system.
Adequate-Good
- Technical aspect of systems were mentioned but not discussed in any detail.
- The type of flow was assigned but not assigned units or a measurable quantity.
- Function Allocation was kept at a basic level such that the technical aspects were
ambiguous.
Poor-Adequate
- Technical aspects of systems were not mentioned and/or incorrect assumptions were
made showing a lack of understanding of the system.
- Functional allocations did not flow correctly based on the technology required, or
were at a very high level such that technology could not be included.

LO4: construct clear and insightful arguments and analysis for your design
Excellent-Outstanding
- A paper flowed in a logical manner such that it built to a strong conclusion.
- All figures and tables were labelled appropriately, were of appropriate scale and were
discussed in the text
- Section headings were useful in understanding the structure of the argument
Adequate-Good
- All figures and tables were labelled and used correctly, but some factors were unclear
- Headings were used, but not necessarily helpful or meaningful
- The paper flowed in a logical manner, but more effort was required to form a strong
argument
Poor-Adequate
- Headings were incorrectly used or not included
- Figures and tables were not useful in supporting discussion.
- Some arguments were present in the paper, but did not lead to a conclusion.

LO5: research and defend arguments about your project design or system
Excellent-Outstanding
- Discussion of tools were referenced using Harvard in text referencing and a correctly
formatted bibliography.
- Any technical knowledge included in the paper was referenced.
- The references were from reputable sources
- In some cases, a case study was sources to support reason for analysis.
Adequate-Good
- Various ideas throughout the paper were referenced.
- References were mostly used to support the concepts, rather than decision making.
- Some sources were reputable, but most were web resources.
Poor-Adequate
- A bibliography was present but the articles were not references in the paper.
- References were not of appropriate standard (eg. Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers).
- The only paper references was Chris Brownes lecture notes (not an appropriate
source to demonstrate research about the topic - listen to Chris advice in the week
three lecture)