3.4.1 Yes systems engineering, you are a discipline

This paper seeks to create a methodology to address large national problems based on the author's experiences on border security and rhino poaching in South Africa. Five problem aspects of large national problems are identified: one or more States, multiple organisations and the general public are involved; problems evolve; the simultaneity of intervention; the issue of complexity and dualism as an example of a frame or worldview. A transdisciplinary approach is proposed as an integrating framework that could deal with complexity. Based on this, a number of areas of systems engineering as problem solving have been extended to deal with border security and rhino poaching: foresight (future problem), operating concept, stakeholder engagement and legal analysis. Finally, the implications for tailoring of a process or methodology are outlined and changes to INCOSE's definition of systems engineering are proposed.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing large national problems in South Africa

Gonçalves

2014

“… However, SE IS a discipline in its own right (Kasser and Hitchins 2012). In a "brownfield" organization that is already "working", a place for the specialist Systems Engineer must be foundand this can be difficult to insert, or to adapt an existing role to serve this new, augmenting function.…”

Section: Addressing Organizational Maturity To Conduct Systems Enginementioning

confidence: 99%

Selling Systems Engineering by Searching for the Sweet Spot

Beasley

O'Neil²

2016

Systems Engineering has the potential to be a ubiquitous discipline, adding value in a multitude of domains and organizations. However, there are problems in application and take‐up in any area where it is not already explicit. Part of the reason for this is the way INCOSE and others present Systems Engineering. From the outside it appears a rigid, process‐heavy approach with a strange terminology and a significant investment burden – rather than a liberating, thoughtful (applied Systems Thinking) approach to yield clearer problem understanding that leads to more successful outcomes. In this paper, based on case study evidence of the application of Systems Engineering in a number of domains, it is suggested a more flexible approach to Systems Engineering is needed to introduce it. The introduction occurs largely within organizations. The approach requires a balance between the type / variant of Systems Engineering required by the problem situation, and the level / potential of Systems Engineering capability in the organization – targeting the “sweet spot” is seeking to optimize these two elements. The implementation of Systems Engineering should be seen and planned as a journey rather than a “big bang” implementation. A flexible approach to implementing Systems Engineering will produce a far greater probability of successful take‐up and application. INCOSE must recognize this and generate guidance to organizations (beyond what it has produced for individuals) to establish capability in (an appropriate style of) Systems Engineering. If this is done, INCOSE can have the impact it desires, with the appropriate application of Systems Engineering leading to more successful projects, and the generation of solutions to the increasing difficult problems and challenges facing the world.

“…The 'A' paradigm begins with the systems engineering activities performed in column 'A' (Needs Identification state) in the HKMF shown in Table 2. The 'B' paradigm begins with the activities performed in column 'B' (Requirements state) in the HKMF, and is a result of the devolution of systems engineering in the US Department of Defense (DOD) (Kasser and Hitchins, 2012).…”

Section: The 'A' and 'B' Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking the Content of Master's Degrees in Systems Engineering in 2013

Kasser

Arnold²

2016

Self Cite

This paper fills a gap in the literature by describing a benchmarking study of the knowledge taught in a sample of systems engineering degrees performed in October 2013. By describing the methodology, the development of the benchmarking criteria, and presenting the observations from the benchmarking study, the paper provides an example of the activities performed in the early stages of the Scientific Method. Since the study was performed to benchmark the Master of Defence Technology and Systems (MDTS) degree offered by the Temasek Defence Systems Institute (TDSI) in the National University of Singapore (NUS), the paper: Highlights benchmarks of the MDTS degree against the sampled Masters’ degrees. Covers the first stage of the Scientific Method, in which observations are made, sorted and analysed before a hypothesis is developed. Proposes criteria to be used for benchmarking degrees from other institutions.