Omission – some “guidelines” (aerospace) for “architecture.” You give some discussion on the “design V” early on. All good. Look at the ARP4754a – this is a set of requirements being laid on the aerospace area. This is a bit more than the NASA “design V.”
For example there are “best practices” to use one set of models early on and another as the design is detailed – practically some would advocate SysML (used a lot in the book by Crawley that you seem to like…) and then something like Modelica/Simulink later on. This also gets to requirements and V&V – things that a “good architecture” should also enable.
Some elaboration – layering. I like the layering (a lot J). See the writeup in the attached Landing Systems notes. Karl (and Johan Andreasson) had a lot of paternity here - as did Rich Poisson. This gets to a process (how do you find a good architecture?) and also gets to a natural layering based on physics (where do layers come from and how many do you need?). This also gets to the merging of supervisory and regulatory controls and also, finally, starts to organize information flow (so in this sense layering is the control architecture equivalent of the (in)famous paper by D. Knuth “go to loops considered harmful”).
Think about additional people at JPL to ask for feedback.
Feedback from Manuel Berenguel, 5 Oct 2016
Taking into account the focus of the book, I think it is convenient to
include a section like this, because potential readers will find control
very useful and will realize that this “hidden technology” is elsewhere.
By saying this, I also recognize it is quite difficult to summarize and
I suppose you have concentrated in five different applications fields to
avoid the section taking too much pages (even though, I think it is
quite summarized in the present form). I also think it should be
interesting (in fact it is mentioned in the text) to give the readers a
list of main associations related to control (IFAC, IEEE, ISA, …) At
least from my experience, when I started to learn control fundamentals,
I didn’t realize of how control fitted in the “classical”
classifications of engineers (Electrical, Mechanical, Chemical and
Management ones in our country).
Minor comments in the text (from the beginning of the section 14.7)
Line 2:  (remember to add the reference)
Line 3: five different applications(at present there are only four)
Section 14.7a, line 8: billon-> billion
This section ends as if unfinished. Perhaps you could write a few words
on future trends of control systems in aerospace.
Section 14.7b. Perhaps, the title could be “Automotive – Complex Systems
used by ordinary people/unskilled people/common human (to avoid the use
of “Man” that is sometimes criticized by women…) This section could also
include future trends at the end.
Lines 2, add a comma between pharmaceuticals and power plants. Line 25:
generatrion-> generation. In line 30, after IEC 61784, perhaps you could
say something about OPC. At the end of the section, you could again
include future trends and perhaps a small discussion on actual
“fashions” like ciberphysical systems/industry 4.0/IoT (for me, these
are the evolution of control of complex systems through the network, but
it seems that those short names have more acceptance).
Section 14.7d. The last paragraph should explain where PID control is
used in this framework and include future trends.
In section 14.8, perhaps you could say something on Smart… (smartgrids,
smart buildings, smart automation…) and systems of systems approaches.
Perhaps, the techniques treated in this section should be included in a
list and developed in more detail. The problem is that it can become
large... this will require referencing the "inventors" of each technique
(too much work...)
You can also say that there are many emerging fields recommending the
reader to take a look at IFAC TCs.