Insight最新文献

Processes and procedures are the heart of current descriptions of systems engineering. The “vee diagram,” ISO 15288, the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook, and enterprise-specific business process models focus attention on process and procedure. However, there is a non-procedural way to view systems engineering. This approach is to describe the configuration space “navigated” by systems engineering, and what is meant by system trajectories in that space, traveled during system life cycles. This sounds abstract because we have lacked explicit maps necessary to describe this configuration space. We understand concrete steps of a procedure, so we focus there. But where do these steps take us? And what does “where” mean in this context? Clues are found in recent discoveries about ancient navigation, as well as later development of mathematics and physics. This paper, part I of a case for stronger model-based systems engineering (MBSE) semantics, focuses on the underlying configuration space inherent to systems.

System complexity continues to grow, creating many new challenges for engineers and decision makers. To maximize value delivery, “both” systems engineering and decision analysis are essential. The systems engineering profession has had a significant focus on improving systems engineering processes. While process plays an important role, the focus on process was often at the expense of foundational engineering axioms and their contribution to system value. As a consequence, systems engineers were viewed as process developers and managers versus technical leaders with a deep understanding of how system interactions are linked to stakeholder value. With the recent shift toward model-based systems engineering (MBSE), systems engineering is “getting back to basics,” focusing on value delivery via first principles, using established laws of engineering and science. This paper describes how pattern-based systems engineering (PBSE), as outlined within INCOSE's model-based systems engineering (MBSE) initiative, explicates system value through modeling of first principles, re-uniting systems engineering and decision analysis capabilities.

INCOSE's Vision 2025 identifies the development of systems thinking and technical leadership as one of seven key areas of systems engineering ‘competency’ required for delivery. Vision 2025 states: “Education and training of systems engineers and the infusion of systems thinking across a broad range of the engineering and management workforce will meet the demands for a growing number of systems engineers with the necessary technical and leadership competencies.” “The roles and competencies of the systems engineer will broaden to address the increasing complexity and diversity of future systems.” “The technical leadership role of the systems engineer on a project will be well established as critical to the success of a project.” These requirements imply the need to rapidly expand the art and science of systems technical leadership. In response to this need, INCOSE established an institute for technical leadership. This paper describes the Institute and the work that the first cohort (“Cohort of 2017”) has accomplished on developing a technical leadership model for systems engineers. It is envisaged that this first technical leadership model for systems engineers will be further developed and matured by the following cohorts of the INCOSE's Technical Leadership Institute.

The world is filled with hard and complex problems, oftentimes requiring involved solutions. In large organizations attempting to solve these types of problems, a mindset shift and key candidate methodologies centered on collaborative systems thinking culture (CSTC) can assist significantly. The paper explores the state of the practice, change involved with implementing systems thinking, impacts of a collaborative approach within an organization, as well as the seven phases that a reader can introduce into their organization to realize some of the benefits. The same approach was used to create this paper under collective authorship from cohort 6 of the INCOSE Technical Leadership Institute (TLI); an international group of individuals collaborating exclusively through virtual platforms. From writing papers to executing large technical programs, the CSTC approach will prepare technical teams for tackling challenging problems in an inclusive way with the intent to finish projects on time while also cultivating healthy systems engineering habits and practices. This lessens the reliance on corporate engineering procedures to drive collaborative behavior by fiat. Finally, blending CSTC into the fabric and culture of an organization is emphasized as being needed for the full benefit. That benefit includes saving programs by moving to a CSTC.

The world is increasingly virtual and complex, with many relationships and teams at a global scale. The situation will not be changing any time soon. Sometimes, it is only possible to interact at a distance, of not only time zones and space, but also sometimes interpersonal distance, where names and voices make up another person. Regardless, technical teams will need good leadership to address complex situations in these virtual and remotely distributed (VaRD) environments. So, in a VaRD environment, do leadership practices and skills have to change? Do the tools, techniques, and technology make current practices for leadership in general, and the application of those practices obsolete? Maybe not.

This paper seeks to examine the nature of what is really changing when leading in a VaRD environment through the lens of engineers leading teams in global and complex technical challenges. Those perspectives are analyzed to determine the factors that go into a VaRD environment. In addition, this paper analyzes how interactions between teams compare to an in-person environment, how leadership practices are applied in this environment, and how technical leadership is tailored for these new environments.

Tinkering — or making small changes to experiment toward an improvement in performance — is seemingly a natural characteristic of many systems engineers. As such, systems engineers are uniquely qualified to develop complex solutions necessary to overcome lack of clarity, achieve order, and avoid failure. Further, there is a much broader conversation surrounding the possibility of “failure” being beneficial in systems engineering projects. In response to the needing to inform judgment in situations shrouded in uncertainty, members of INCOSE's Technical Leadership Institute (TLI) cohort 8 examined the role of safe-to-fail probes play in informing judgement for systems engineers. Within the constraints of the TLI's major project, virtual workshops and qualitative interviews were two data collection mechanisms established to empirically investigate the role(s) of safe-to-fail probing in systems engineering. Overall, the data sets offered conclusions describing the potential role(s) of safe-to-fail probes for systems engineers working in uncertain environments. Resulting from this (limited) empirical exploration are additional insights and implications for how systems engineers may invoke safe-to-fail probes to improve decision-making in uncertain and challenging situations. Such a tinkerer's mindset can help systems engineers transition from the constraints of “intolerable failure” to the opportunities related to probing-sensing-responding to “responsible failures.”

Technical leadership is a skill defined in the INCOSE professional competencies. This paper presents reflections on a shared learning journey about technical leadership from the perspective of a group of emerging technical leaders. These reflections provide insights around building awareness, navigating power and influence, benchmarking personal performance, developing capacity for change, and establishing critical friends. The final section provides lessons for working as a global team in technical leadership. This paper is of relevance to any technical leader looking to develop this capacity across technical sectors.

Systems engineering leaders' career development journeys are primarily driven by their experiences that shape their capability, qualities, and perspective; however, the pathways that individuals take are not only broad and varied, but also equally affected by personal life decisions and external factors. This paper describes a two-fold study that aimed to: a) provide insight into commonalities in the career journeys of systems engineering leaders, and b) ascertain how key areas affect career development. Five key areas were explored: education, technical experience, soft skills experience, job satisfaction, and work-life balance. A mixed and multi-method approach was taken, gathering data from sixty-one participants through interviews, surveys, and facilitated workshop. The study found that although there was no ‘blueprint’ that yields successful systems engineering leadership, there were themes/trends that were common. An influence model was developed to highlight these trends in the form of the key areas, factors affecting them, and the interrelationships between them.

This paper summarizes the authors' reflections on global trends and key factors influencing systems engineering in the post-COVID era. The discussion builds upon INCOSE's Systems Engineering Vision 2035, as well as multiple virtual workshops and peer discussions conducted by the authors as part of their experience in INCOSE's Technical Leadership Institute (TLI). The authors focus on three key factors affecting technical leaders and their technical leadership role: 1) the heightened societal awareness of environmental concerns along with the associated demand for more environmentally friendly products, 2) the increasingly interconnected, multicultural, multigenerational work environment, and 3) the increasing capability of advanced digital tools, techniques, and processes. The authors' analysis acknowledges the need for technical leaders to think green, build an inclusive work environment, welcome differing viewpoints, avoid stereotyping, and expand their virtual tradecraft. Ultimately technology changes how technical leaders do their jobs, but not the job itself. Leaders must still set the vision and direction of the organization, communicate that vision to their stakeholders, and provide the resources and support that the team needs to achieve the vision. Emerging technologies offer leaders new and innovative means to do this in a more inviting and inclusive manner.