Management of Complex Aerospace Systems

1) The main idea and pape's content are originals.

2) The paper proposes a relevant contribution about the content.
3) The structure is presented weakly. It needs a strong orientation about case
study research, so some references are recommended.
4) The title does not correspond objectively to the full body of the paper's
content. I do recommend the authors rewrite the title as �Analysis of strategies
for management of complex aerospace systems: a case study.�
5) The main idea is well summarized in the abstract but the paper's development
does not delivery the declarations of the abstract.
6) The introduction needs to receive a new structure if possible as suggested:
contextualization, problem declaration or research question, principal objective,
secondary objective, motivation or relevance of this work to the scientific
community and society, methodology and how this work can be reproduced and an clear
text about structure of the research.
7) The theory has a regular review but it is missing some basic definitions and
concepts about Systems Engineering, and systems failures analysis. I do recommend
the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook and NASA Systems Engineering Handbook for a
simple organization and improvement of the references.
8) The results are presented weakly. I do believe that results deserves a
special space in the work as a subchapter as well as the methodology used and the
conclusions.
9) The conclusions are not clear related to the content of the work because is
missing a strong construction of the case study methodology. When a case study
methodology is well planned and developed, the results are clear, easy to conclude
and understand.
10) There are so many references in body text showing Author and Co-Author (page
2, 4, 5, 17.) What is it? The author and co-author can not appear in the work
because they are not in the references in the end of the paper and they can be
easily identified. I do recommend strongly rewrite this sentences and eliminate the
auto citation. There are so many references with typos, for example in the pages 13
and 16: (Bureau d�Enqu�tes et d�Analyses 2012). It is missing the comma and it was
written in lowercase.
11) The language is regular in general, but there are so many phrases in third
person of plural and it is not correct (pages 2 and 26 for example). The scientific
work needs to be unpersonal and it needs to be written in a passive form. Examples
of personal declarations in the Conclusions: �As we continue to build...�, �...we
can expect to generate additional heuristics...�

I will suggest the references about case study:

VOSS, C.; TSIKRIKTIS, N.; FROHLICH, M. Case research in operations management.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, v.22, n.2, p.195-
219, 2002.

MINTZBERG, H (1979), �An emerging strategy of �direct� research�, Administrative

Science Quartely, Vol.24, pp.590-601.
EISENHARDT, K.M. (1989), �Building theory from case study research�, Academy of
Management Review, Vol.14 No.4, pp.532-50.
INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook
NASA Systems Engineering Handbook
ESA Systems Engineering Handbook
MIL-STD-499B - Systems Engineering
http://segoldmine.ppi-int.com/documents/systems-engineering-incose-guide-1997

I will suggest a subchapter explaning the case research framework proposed to study
the four workshops of the Complex Aerospace Systems Exchange, the constructs and
questions of each case study can be showed in a table, as well as the principal
Systems Engineering Concepts.

In general the paper is original and it has a good idea based on exceptional case
studies, but the structure of the work needs a great improvement for the paper to
be accepted.