ENGN8100 | Introduction to Systems Engineering
1 | The Australian National University Assignment 2: Functional Analysis & Allocation
Assignment 2:
Concept Design
Due date Week 7, Monday 15h April 2024, 9:00am
Submission Turnitin on course Wattle site
Format Single report as pdf
Referencing and
citation
Harvard or IEEE style
Value 20% of course total
Participation Individual
Late submissions See the ENGN8100 course guide on wattle for instructions around
late penalties.
Part 1: Functional Baseline // 20 marks
The objective of this section is to develop a Functional Flow Block Diagram (FFBD). Reverse
engineer one of the following three systems to determine a functional baseline. Use this to
then generate an FFBD.
1. Sponge Cities (eg. Qian’an, China; Montreal, Canada; Jakarta, Indonesia; etc)
2. Smart Speakers (eg. Google Nest, Amazon Echo, Apple HomePod, Sonos Move, etc)
3. Mobile Payment App (eg. Google Pay, Apple Pay, Paypal, Venmo, Samsung Pay, etc)
For each of these systems there are many physical system architectures that you can study.
The goal is to derive a single functional baseline that describes the functions and boundaries
of the system considered. A key learning outcome is to understand how studying existing
systems, as well as using your own understanding, helps to develop a functional baseline for
a new system.
The deliverable for this part is a functional baseline document. This takes the form of a
functional decomposition, in list form, coupled with an FFBD structure that visualises the flow
of function through the system. Use decomposition of high-level functions into lower-level
functions where appropriate. This will lead to nested sets of FFBDs. Make sure that you
include external functions and actions where appropriate and draw the system boundary
where appropriate. [2-3 pages]
ENGN8100 | Introduction to Systems Engineering
2 | The Australian National University Assignment 2: Functional Analysis & Allocation
Part 2: Concept Comparison
Undertake the concept design phase for your scenario from Part 1. Choose a key functional
block and find a causal path with at most two other functional blocks. For each functional
block come up with at least 2 or 3 technology concepts. Choose a selection of technologies
from the concepts and from these generate a single concept sketch. Make sure that the
concept sketches cover the whole system and not just the causal path you used to describe
the basic idea. [1-2 pages].
Part 3: System Architecture
For your selected concept sketch, provide a system architecture diagram [1/2 page], a
physical baseline (that is list of subsystems with short description) [1/2 page], and a functional
allocation (that is a table that correlates functions to subsystems) [1/2 page]. [Total of around
1-2 pages]
Assessment
Marks are allocated for
• Quality of the functional baseline.
• The quality and diversity of the concept sketch.
• The professionalism of the system architecture and physical baseline.
Report structure:
1. Executive summary: [indicative length 1/2 page]
a. What class of system did you consider.
b. Outline the proposed concept at a high level.
2. Functional baseline [2-3 pages depending on the number of subsystems required)]
a. Provide a set of FFBDs that capture the functional decomposition of the
proposed system. This should be a graphic and easy to read. Typically a
complex FFBD will require a half page or even a whole page to draw clearly.
b. A functional decomposition listing all of the functions of the system in a
suitable hierarchy and structure. Provide suitable labelling and naming for
each of the functions.
3. Concept selection [1-2 pages]
a. An outline of the brainstorming process that you undertook up to and
including concepts for individual functions.
b. One concept sketch [1 page max each including figure]
4. System Architecture [2-3 pages]
a. A set of system architecture diagrams that capture the system architecture.
b. A system decomposition listing all subsystems in a suitable hierarchy and
structure. Provide suitable labelling and naming for each of the subsystems.
c. A functional allocation table. Allocate functions to subsystem in tabular form.
5. Recommendation. [ max ½ page]
ENGN8100 | Introduction to Systems Engineering
3 | The Australian National University Assignment 2: Functional Analysis & Allocation
a. A short concluding statement that supports the choice of the concept for
consideration in the preliminary design stage.
Submit your answers to both parts of the assignment as a single typeset pdf document
electronically through wattle. You must submit the file at the submission box. Handwritten or
poorly legible submissions will be marked with zero marks. Include a proper cover sheet
with your u-number.
Learning Outcomes
1. Identify different types of systems through key behaviours and functionality
2. Gather, analyse, and communicate requirements to technical and non-technical
audiences
ENGN8100 | Introduction to Systems Engineering
4 | The Australian National University Assignment 2: Functional Analysis & Allocation
Marking rubric for assignment A2
Criteria Fail
(0-5)
Pass
(5-6)
Credit
(6-7)
Distinction
(7-8)
High-Distinction
(8-10)
Executive
summary
10%
Executive
summary is
missing or
unclear.
Executive summary is
missing major elements.
Recommendation unclear.
Executive summary is complete, but
few insights shown and
recommendation unclear.
Executive summary outlines key
aspects of the concept design.
Recommendation is clear.
Executive summary concisely and
completely summarises the key aspects of
the project. The recommendation is
clearly outlined.
Functional
baseline
30%
Unclear or
incorrect.
Functional decomposition
contains errors (functions
are technology dependent
or are subsystems not
functions).
FFBD is poor and ill
structured.
System boundary is poorly
chosen.
FFBD is reasonable and system
boundary is present. Functional
decomposition is missing elements
or partially incorrect – e.g.
functions are technology
dependent.
FFBD is complete and not missing any
major elements. FFBD has lower-level
FFBDs where appropriate and an
appropriate system boundary.
Functions are well structured and not
technology dependent. Functional
descriptions are correct.
Excellent functional decomposition. FFBD
is clear and well structure with lower-level
FFBDs where appropriate. Correct and
appropriate systems boundary.
Functional descriptions are valid succinct
and include references as appropriate.
Very easy to read no mistakes in labelling.
Concept selection
15%
No concept
sketches.
Concept
selection doesn’t
make sense or is
wrong.
Basic concept sketche(s) –
not well developed.
Concept selection lacks
justification – no evidence of
process. Insufficient
concepts or concepts are
too similar.
Good concept sketches. Concept
sketches are too similar to really
explore problem space. Some
documentation of brainstorming
and concept selection processes.
Lacking some elements or with
inconsistencies.
Very good concept sketches that have
substantive differences. Good
outline of brainstorming processes
and concept selection.
Very good concept sketches that provide
strong coverage of problem space.
Excellent and insightful concept selection.
Brainstorming processes clearly
outlined. Clear justifications provided for
concept selection.
System
architecture
30%
None or missing
most of the
expected
components. No
functional
allocation.
A poor system architecture
without strong justification.
Functional allocation lacks
elements or contains errors.
A consistent system architecture.
Good choice of subsystems.
Functional allocation is correct.
Very good system architecture. Good
choice of subsystems with clear
boundaries. Good identification of
interfaces. Good labelling.
Functional allocation is correct and
complete.
Excellent system architecture. Excellent
structure and choice of subsystems with
very clear boundaries with reference to
design principles. Subsystem interfaces
well chosen and justified. Functional
allocation is comprehensive and well
justified. Clear and correct labelling
throughout.
Recommendation
15%
None. Recommendation lacking
justification or insight.
Good recommendation with some
justification. Lacking reference to
design process.
Very good recommendation well
justified by reference to design
process.
Excellent and insightful recommendation
with strong justification derived from
detailed reference to design process.