A Proposed Framework for a Systems Engineering Discipline
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 1 A Proposed Framework for a Systems Engineering Discipline Joseph E. Kasser Centre of Excellence in Defence and Industrial Systems Capability University of South Australia Adelaide, Australia Email: Joseph.email@example.com early stages of a discipline. The paper then Abstract discusses the elements of a discipline and hy- The paper discusses the rationale for, and pothesizes that a framework for systems engi- describes a proposed framework for systems neering exists. Using the scientific method to engineering in the context of a discipline. This build on an earlier two-dimensional frame- framework, the Hitchins-Kasser-Massie work, the paper then presents a candidate (HKM) framework has already facilitated three-dimensional-framework based on the postgraduate teaching of systems engineering problem solving perspective. The paper then and has provided reasons why systems engi- discusses some insights that the framework neers have a plurality of views concerning the has already provided. scope and nature of systems engineering. The contribution of this paper is to place the HKM The need for a framework framework in the context of Kline‟s definition We need a framework because systems of a discipline. engineering has failed to fulfill 50 years of promises of providing solutions to the com- Introduction plex problems facing society. (Wymore, 1994) George Friedman called for the develop- pointed out that it was necessary for systems ment of a grand unified theory of systems en- engineering to become an engineering discip- gineering (GUTSE) (Friedman, 2006) echoing line if it was to fulfill its promises and thereby the earlier lament by (Hill and Warfield, 1972) survive. Nothing has changed in that respect who wrote since then. (Wymore, 1994) also stated that “development of a theory of systems “Systems engineering is the intellec- engineering that will be broadly ac- tual, academic, and professional disci- cepted is much to be desired.” pline, the principal concern of which is to ensure that all requirements for Taking up the spirit of those challenges, bioware/hardware/software systems this paper proposes a framework for systems are satisfied throughout the lifecycles engineering that can serve as a vital element in of the systems. This statement defines formalizing the discipline of systems engi- systems engineering as a discipline, neering and potentially as a platform for de- not as a process. The currently ac- veloping such a theory. cepted processes of systems engineer- The paper begins with a discussion of the ing are only implementations of sys- need for the framework, as a fundamental part tems engineering. of a discipline, observes that systems engi- neering shows the symptoms of being in the Out of more than 50 definitions discovered
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 2 in the literature (Kasser and Massie, 2001; Moving towards a discipline Kasser and Palmer, 2005), Wymore provided As today‟s systems engineering is in a the only definition of systems engineering as a similar state to chemistry and electrical engi- discipline. neering in their formative years, then a major step forward in the development of the discip- The elements of a discipline line would be to apply the scientific method to Consider the elements that make up a dis- postulate a hypothesis (namely a framework cipline. One view was provided by (Kline, for systems engineering exists); identify and 1995) page 3) who states prototype a candidate framework, test it; mod- “a discipline possesses a specific area ify it and eventually evolve a working frame- of study, a literature, and a working work for systems engineering. This frame- community of paid scholars and/or work would pull together systems engineering paid practitioners”. in an analogous manner to the application of the periodic table of elements in chemistry. Systems engineering has a working com- The hypothesis behind this research is that munity of paid scholars and paid practitioners. if the activities performed by systems engi- However, the area of study seems to be differ- neers can be plotted in a framework it may be ent in each academic institution but with vari- able to bring about a revision of the a priori ous degrees of commonality. This situation understanding of systems engineering. This can be explained by the recognition that means a change in the understanding of its (1) systems engineering has only been in current paradigm (Churchman, 1979) page existence since the middle of the 20 th 105) or Weltanschauung (Checkland and century (Johnson, 1997; Jackson and Scholes, 1990), and its emergence as a true Keys, 1984; Hall, 1962), and engineering discipline. (Kasser, 2006) dis- (2) as an emerging discipline, systems cussed the evolution of a proposed framework engineering is displaying the same for systems engineering. This paper places characteristics as did other now estab- that framework in the context of Kline‟s defi- lished disciplines in their formative nition of a discipline. years. Thus, systems engineering may be consi- Elements relevant to research in dered as being in a similar situation to the a discipline state of chemistry before the development of the periodic table of the elements, or similar to According to (Checkland and Holwell, the state of electrical engineering before the 1998) research into a discipline needs the fol- development of Ohm‟s Law. This is why vari- lowing three items: ous academic institutions focus on different An Area of Concern (A), which might be areas of study but with some degree of com- a particular problem in a discipline (area monality in the systems development life of study), a real-world problem situation, cycle. Nevertheless, to be recognized as a dis- or a system of interest. cipline, the degree of overlap of the various A particular linked Framework of Ideas areas of study in the different institutions (F) in which the knowledge about the area needs to be much, much greater. of concern is expressed. It includes current theories, bodies of knowledge, heuristics, etc as documented in the literature as well as tacit knowledge.
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 3 Figure 1 Elements relevant to any piece of research (Checkland and Hol- well, 1998) page 23) The Methodology (M) in which the the systems engineer is the man who is framework is embodied that incorporates generally responsible for the over-all methods, tools, and techniques in a man- planning, design, testing, and produc- ner appropriate to the discipline that uses tion of today’s automatic and semi- them to investigate the area of concern. automatic systems” (Chapanis, 1960) page 357). Figure 1 extracted from (Checkland and Holwell, 1998) page 23) illustrates the rela- The principal functions of systems en- tionship between these elements. Given that gineering are “to develop statements there is a working community of paid scholars of system problems comprehensively, and/or practitioners (Kline, 1995) page 3), without disastrous oversimplification, these same three elements can also be used to precisely without confusing ambigui- characterise a discipline because they expand ties, without confusing ends and (Kline, 1995)‟s specification and encompass means, without eliminating the ideal in the key aspects of a discipline (Cook, Kasser favour of the merely practical, without and Ferris, 2003). Consider each of these ele- confounding the abstract and the con- ments in turn, as they apply to systems engi- crete, without reference to any particu- neering. lar solutions or methods, to resolve An Area of Concern (A). Pragmatically, top-level system problems into simpler the Area of Concern (A) should be both what problems that are solvable by technol- systems engineers do and where they do it. ogy: hardware, software, and bioware, There have been many diverse opinions on to integrate the solutions to the simpler these topics over the years, typical examples problems into systems to solve the top- are (Allison and Cook, 1998; Hitchins, 2000; level problem” (Wymore, 1993) page Sage, 1995; Badaway, 1995; Kasser, 1995; 2). Chapanis, 1960; Shenhar and Bonen, 1997; Wymore, 1993) hence the difficulty in defin- Systems engineering is a wide-range ing systems engineering. Three sample opi- activity, and it should not be handled nions are: in the same form for all kinds of sys- tems (Shenhar and Bonen, 1997). “Despite the difficulties of finding a universally accepted definition of sys- tems engineering, it is fair to say that In addition, the latest systems engineering
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 4 standard ISO 1528 provides a list of the orga- cal breadth and technical depth. Roe adds nizational processes or activities in which sys- that the difference in application is that the tems engineers are involved as shown in Fig- system engineer has more technical ure 2 extracted from the standard (Arnold, breadth, while the project manager has 2002) page 61). Note the use of the word more management expertise. “management” in eight of the process boxes. (Bottomly, Brook, Morris and Stevens, 1998) studied the roles of the systems en- gineer and the project manager and identi- fied 185 activities and their competencies (experience and knowledge). Their find- ings included: o No competency was assessed as being purely the province of sys- tems engineering. o There is no sharp division between the two disciplines (systems engi- neer and the project manager) even at the level of individuals. Further research into the reason for the Figure 2 ISO 52888 Systems Engi- overlapping of the disciplines turned up in- neering Processes formation as to how the overlap originated. The following statement: There have also been many discussions in “Driven by cold war pressures to de- the literature about the overlapping of, and velop new military systems rapidly, differences in, the roles of systems engineer- operations research, systems engineer- ing, systems architecting, and project man- ing, and project management resulted agement, e.g. (Brekka, Picardal and Vlay, from a growing recognition by scien- 1994; Roe, 1995; Sheard, 1996; Kasser, 1996; tists, engineers and managers that Mooz and Forsberg, 1997; Kasser, 2002; technological systems had grown too Eisner, 2002; Kasser and Palmer, 2005; Kass- complex for traditional methods of er, 2005; Faulconbridge and Ryan, 2003; Mai- management and development” (John- er and Rechtin, 2000) and (Alleman, 2005) son, 1997) who recasts project management as systems management using systems engineering. In and the argument in the rest of the paper addition, there have also been many discus- seem to provide a definitive answer. (Kasser, sions in the literature about the depth of spe- 2005) showed how the roles evolved into cialty knowledge required for each of the roles overlapping functions due to the differences in in the development of systems, typical exam- the activities assigned to the roles in different ples are (Kasser and Schermerhorn, 1994; organisations. The (A) of systems engineering Roe, 1995; Bottomly, Brook, Morris and Ste- thus needs to span the activities performed by vens, 1998; Maier and Rechtin, 2000; Kasser, the roles of the systems engineer, operations 2000; Kasser, 2002). For example: researcher and project manager. according to (Roe, 1995) the knowledge The framework of ideas (F). (Checkland and skills of systems engineers are the and Holwell, 1998) pages 23-25) discuss the same as those of project management in importance of a “declared-in-advance” epis- the areas of management expertise, techni- temological framework (F) when undertaking
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 5 interpretive research. Thus establishing an (F) and Fabrycky, 1981; Buede, 2000) and is fundamental to the definition of a research other treatments of the systems engineer- topic or a discipline. As systems engineering ing process. focuses on problems (Wymore, 1994), the (F) for systems engineering can be considered as The Hitchins-Kasser-Massie being documented in the literature on systems Framework thinking, problem solving and the activities The vertical and horizontal dimensions of that take place in the (A). the framework are based on the work of The methodology (M). Since the activity (Kasser and Massie, 2001) who, in conceptua- known as systems engineering overlaps other lising a framework for a systems engineering organisational activities, systems engineering body of knowledge based on the roles of sys- may be considered as a meta-methodology tems engineers, created the following two- incorporating the methodologies, tools and dimensional framework. techniques used in the (A) by both systems The vertical dimension of the frame- engineers and practitioners of the other orga- work is based on the work of (Hitchins, 2000) nisational activities. This puts a considerable who proposed the following five-layer model number of tools into the toolbox of the sys- for systems engineering: tems engineer. These tools include: Layer 5 - Socioeconomic, the stuff of Total Systems Intervention (Flood and regulation and government control. Jackson, 1991); Layer 4 - Industrial Systems Engineering Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland or engineering of complete supply and Holwell, 1998); chains/circles. Many industries make a the process-oriented, blended, object- socio-economic system. A global wealth oriented, rapid development, people ori- creation philosophy. Japan seems to oper- ented, and organisational-oriented meth- ate most effectively at this level. odologies discussed in (Avison and Fitz- Layer 3 - Business Systems Engineering - gerald, 2003); many businesses make an industry. At this a whole suite of problem solving tools for level, systems engineering seeks to opti- requirements elicitation and elucidation mize performance somewhat independent discussed in (Hari, Kasser and Weiss, of other businesses 2007); these include interviews (Alexan- Layer 2- Project or System Level. Many der and Stevens, 2002), Joint Applications projects make a Business. Western engi- Development (JAD) (Wood and Silver, neer-managers operate at this level, prin- 1995), Analytical Hierarchical Process cipally making complex artefacts. (AHP) (Saaty, 1990), Nominal Group Layer 1- Product Level. Many products Technique (NGT) (Memory Jogger, 1985) make a system. The tangible artefact level. scenario building, user/customer inter- Many [systems] engineers and their insti- views, questionnaires, customer visits, ob- tutions consider this to be the only "real" servation, customer value analysis, use systems engineering. cases, contextual inquiry, focus groups, viewpoint modelling (Darke and Shanks, Hitchins states that the five layers form a 1997), and Quality Function Deployment "nesting" model, i.e. many products make a (QFD) (Hauser and Clausing, 1988; Claus- project, many projects make a business, many ing and Cohen, 1994); businesses make an industry and many indus- the more commonly used hard systems tries make a socio-economic system. Hitchins methodologies discussed in (Blanchard also states that these statements are only ap-
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 6 proximate since- working in Area „2F.‟ Note, while the axes of A socioeconomic system has more in it the framework are shown in a linear manner, than just industries. this is just for the convenience of drawing. A business has more in it than just pro- The operations and maintenance phase of the jects, and so on. system life cycle generally lasts much longer Actual organizations may divide the work than the initial acquisition phases, hence col- in different ways resulting in either sub- umn G is drawn wider than the other columns. layers, or different logical break points. The horizontal dimension of the frame- work covers the phases of the systems engi- neering life cycle. (Kasser and Massie, 2001) did not define explicit phases. The phases have been stated in various ways in various standards, conference papers and books, but for this framework, they are now defined in generic terms as: A. Identifying the need. B. Requirements analysis. C. Design of the system. D. Construction of the system. Figure 3 The HKM Framework for E. Testing of the system components. Systems Engineering F. Integration and testing of the system. G. Operations, maintenance and upgrading Adding the third dimension the system. (Kasser and Massie, 2001)‟s vertical and H. Disposal of the system. horizontal dimensions provide a map for the location of the activities performed by systems The horizontal dimension is also nested engineers. This paper now goes beyond but in time. For example, the initial acquisi- (Kasser and Massie, 2001) and discusses the tion of a system might flow linearly through development of the candidate for the third di- the system development life cycle from Area mension. The third dimension of the HKM 2B through Areas 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F to delivery Framework is the difficult one since there are and operations and maintenance in Area 2G. many ways to classify the types of problems However, the activities that take place during posed in each area of the network. One imme- the operations and maintenance phase (Area diately obvious approach is by the domain 2G) are the same as those that take place in (aerospace, military, commercial etc.) how- requirements analysis (of change requests) ever, it was felt that (2B), design (2C), construction (2D) testing 1. this situation was analogous to the devel- (2E) and integration (2F) of the configurations opment of theories of motivation in Psy- of the various system upgrades. chology, and The vertical and horizontal axes produce a 2. if the analogy holds true then applying les- two-dimensional map containing 40 areas as sons learned from Psychology to systems shown in Figure 3. Thus, a systems engineer engineering, should provide a workable performing requirements analysis for a new framework. system is working in Area „2B‟. Another sys- tems engineer performing integration and test- At one point of time in the development of ing on the same or a different new system is theories of motivation, Henry A. Murray iden-
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 7 tified separate kinds of behaviour and devel- views the coin. For example, a set of require- oped an exhaustive list of psychogenic or so- ments may be considered as: cial needs (Murray, 1938). However, the list is a solution – the specification of a system so long that there is almost a separate need for that will meet a need. each kind of behaviour that people demon- A problem – a description of something strate (Hall and Lindzey, 1957). While this list that needs to be designed. has been very influential in the field of Psy- chology, it has not been applied directly to the Consequently, the first attempt to formu- study of motivation in organizations. This is late a framework for systems engineering in probably because the length of the list makes this research (Kasser, 2006) based the third it impractical to use. On the other hand, Mas- dimension of the framework on problem solv- low's hierarchical classification of needs ing (risk mitigation). One context of catego- (Maslow, 1954; Maslow, 1968; Maslow, ries for risk mitigation was found in the litera- 1970) has been by far the most widely used ture in (Shenhar and Bonen, 1997) who pre- classification system in the study of motiva- sented a taxonomy in which systems were tion in organizations. Maslow differs from classified according to three levels of system Murray in two important ways; his list is scope and four levels of technological uncer- Arranged in a hierarchy -commonly tainty (risk). Their three levels of system drawn as a pyramid, and contains a set of scope correspond roughly to the three lower hypotheses about the satisfaction of these layers of the Hitchins five layer model (Hit- needs. chins, 2000) and their four levels of technolo- Short -- Only five categories. gical uncertainty (risk) are: Type a — Low-Technology Projects Clayton P. Alderfer subsequently proposed which rely on existing and well- modifying Maslow's theory by reducing the established technologies to which all in- number of categories to three (Alderfer, dustry players have equal access. The sys- 1972). Murray's and early theories defined tem requirements of Low-Tech Projects needs or instincts, Maslow's shows interde- are usually set by the customer prior to pendencies and relationships between those signing the contract and before the formal needs and Alderfer proposed further reduc- initiation of the project execution phase. tions in the number of categories. Applying Type b — Medium-Technology Projects this situation to systems engineering, it was which rest mainly on existing technolo- felt that using system domains as the third di- gies; however, such systems incorporate a mension would be analogous to using Mur- new technology or a new feature of limited ray‟s list of needs and a Maslow/Alderfer scale. Their requirements are mainly set in more generic-type classification was needed. advance; however, some changes may be Consider Maslow as having identified com- introduced during the product develop- mon categories and then grouped Murray‟s ment phase. This process often involves a needs into those categories as well as adding joint effort of the contractor and customer. the interdependencies and relationships be- It may also require the involvement of po- tween those needs. In any domain of systems tential customers in the process. engineering systems engineers deal with prob- lems (Wymore, 1994). Type c — High-Technology Projects Problem stating and problem solving may which are defined as projects in which be considered as two sides of the same coin most of the technologies employed are depending on the perspective from which one new, but existent — having been devel-
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 8 oped prior to the project’s initiation. Sys- work. The following are some of the insights tem requirements are derived interactively already afforded by the framework. with a strong involvement by customers or 1. Reasons why systems engineers do not potential users, and many changes are in- agree on the roles of systems engineers troduced during the development phase. and the different definitions of systems engineering. Type d — Super-High-Technology Pro- 2. A roadmap for a more complete set of sys- jects which are based primarily on new, tem requirements. not entirely existent, technologies. Some 3. The place of operations research in the of these technologies are emerging; others framework. are even unknown at the time of the pro- 4. The similarity between new product de- ject’s initiation. System requirements are velopment and systems engineering. hard to determine; they undergo enormous 5. An explanation of the iterative nature of changes and involve extensive interaction systems engineering. with the customer. Thus, Shenhar and Bonen‟s work forms 1. Reasons why systems engineers do the basis for the risk dimension of the HKM not agree on the roles of systems engineers Framework at least in the lower layers of tra- and the different definitions of systems en- ditional systems engineering. gineering. The HKM Framework illustrates As the development of a system pro- one reason why systems engineers have not gresses through the system development life- been able to agree on roles and activities is cycle the work takes place in different areas of that systems engineers work in different layers the HKM Framework. The nature of the prob- and in different phases of each layer (Areas of lems faced by systems engineers in each area the framework). (Cook, 2003) demonstrates of the framework will be different because the this in the classroom by positioning a number problems will depend on the level of techno- of areas in which systems engineers work as logical uncertainty of the specific system summarized below. (Shenhar and Bonen, 1997). Shenhar and ―Traditional systems engineering cov- Bonen also support (Martin, 1994)‟s claim ers Layer 2 as shown in Figure 9. that adopting the wrong system and manage- Contemporary test and evaluation is ment style may cause major difficulties during shown in Figure 9. The ―V‖ model can the process of system creation. Namely, what be seen in the figure. works in Area „2Ba‟ may not work in Area Military platforms lie mostly in Layer „2Bd‟.Thus, a systems engineer working in 2 with some activities in Layers 1 and Area „2B‟ should be using methodologies ap- 3 as shown in Figure 9 propriate to Area „2Ba‟ if it is a low technical Information systems overlap several risk system or Area „2Bd‟ if it is a Super- layers as shown in Figure 9. They High-Technology Project. comprise traditional systems integrated out of [commercial] products interact- Insights from the HKM Frame- ing with the business and supply chain work layers. The effort spent to provide the first at- Capability Development lies as shown tempt at a map of the (A) of the discipline of in Figure 9. This roughly corresponds systems engineering by applying lessons to the investment management and re- learned from Psychology to systems engineer- source management processes shown ing, seems to be providing a useable frame- in Figure 2 (Arnold, 2002). The posi-
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 9 Figure 4 Traditional Systems Engi- Figure 5 Contemporary Test and Eval- neering uation Figure 6 Military Platforms Figure 7 Information Systems Figure 8 Capability Development Figure 9 Overlay of areas tioning of Capability Development in If the positions of activities in the frame- the figure indicates that this activity is work are overlapped, the result is as shown in focused in the front of the business- Figure 9. It shows that systems engineers layer lifecycle. Capability Develop- working in the different parts of the frame- ment also interacts with the supply work do different tasks. Figure 9 does not chain level because there is a need to ensure enduring support to future De- Evaluation Centre, University of South Australia, fence capabilities. Lastly, it interfaces Adelaide, 2003., such a representation is, of course, to Layer 2 through the acquisition pro- overly simplistic because aspects of the capability development processes also occur further down the life- jects it generates1.‖ cycle, thus a more accurate representation would be an overlay whose colour saturation represents the degree 1 of effort applied at each point in the two-dimensional According to Cook, S. C., Principles of Systems space. Engineering - Course Notes, Systems Engineering and
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 10 show, but anecdotal evidence indicates that noted by Roy as “Operations research is more systems engineers working in the different likely to be concerned with systems in being areas of the framework use the same words than with operations in prospect” (Roy, 1960) but with different meanings. For example, the Page 22). Thus, operations research seems to word “Capability” has different meanings in focus on the areas in column G of the frame- Areas „3A‟ and „2C‟. Consequently, it is no work. wonder they cannot agree on what systems 4. The similarity between new product engineering is and on what systems engineers development and systems engineering. do. (Priest and Sánchez, 2001) provide a descrip- 2. A roadmap for a more complete set of tion of the product development process as system requirements. The traditional re- follows: quirements definition process focuses on the 1. Requirements definition. functional and performance of the system in 2. Conceptual design. its operations and maintenance phase. Treat 3. Detailed design. the HKM framework as a road map, where the 4. Test and evaluation. road begins in columns A or B, and ends in 5. Manufacturing. columns G or H. This gives an explicit as- 6. Logistics, supply chain, and environment. sumption that the system will pass though oth- The description of each step in the product er areas during its development lifecycle. Dur- development process maps into the HKM ing the requirements definition phase (Area framework Layer 2 systems engineering life 2B) determine if any of these areas lay re- cycle yet the words systems engineering do quirements on the system (e.g. supply chain not appear in the book. For example, the U- requirements such as installation, storage, and diagram on (Priest and Sánchez, 2001) page transport), and if so include them in the sys- 64) shown in Figure 10 is equivalent to sys- tem requirements. tems engineering’s V-diagram. This is hardly 3. The place of operations research in surprising as the product development process the framework. Operations research was de- takes place in Layer 1 while traditional sys- fined as “how to make sure that the whole sys- tems engineering takes place in Layer 2 of the tem works with maximum effectiveness and framework as shown in Figure 9. least cost” (Johnson, 1954) page xix) a goal that many modern systems engineers would 5. An explanation of the iterative nature apply to systems engineering. The overlap be- of systems engineering. Students have had tween operations research and systems engi- trouble grasping the concept that systems en- neering was noted as early as 1954 when gineering is iterative. The Egg diagram (AN- Johnson wrote “Operations research is con- SI/EIA-632, 1999) shows iterative activities cerned with the heart of this control problem – but does not clearly show how the emphasis how to make sure that the whole systems changes over the life cycle. The FRAT cycle works with maximum effectiveness and least (Mar, 1994) on the other hand provides a cost” (Johnson, 1954) page xi). According to clearer perspective in the context of the HKM (Goode and Machol, 1959) page 130) “the op- Framework. For example, the answer to the erations analyst is primarily interested in question of “when do we do functional analy- making procedural changes whilst the systems sis?” is “several times”. We use it in the „F‟ engineer is primarily interested in making step of the FRAT cycle in each Area of the equipment changes.” A lasting difference was framework
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 11 Figure 10 U-Shape development: flow down of design requirements and flow up of testing (Priest and Sánchez, 2001) By virtue of the HKM Framework, sys- Summary tems engineering can fulfil (Wymore, This paper takes up the spirit of the chal- 1994)‟s requirement to become a disci- lenges for the development of a theory of sys- pline since systems engineering now meets tems engineering (Hill and Warfield, 1972; Kline‟s definition of a discipline, namely it Friedman, 2006) and describes a candidate has “a specific area of study, a literature, three-dimensional framework for systems en- and a working community of paid scholars gineering viewed from problem-solving and and/or paid practitioners” (Kline, 1995) decision-making perspective that provides page 3). Kline‟s elements of a discipline namely an (A), (F), and (M). The paper has shown that References the framework has already provided insight as Alderfer, C. P., Existence, Relatedness and to reasons why systems engineers have a plu- Growth: Human Needs in Organiza- rality of views concerning the scope and na- tional Settings, The Free Press, 1972. ture of systems engineering. Research into this Alexander, I. F. and Stevens, S., Writing Bet- framework continues. ter Requirements, Addison-Wesley, 2002. Conclusions Alleman, G. B., Large Project Management The conclusions from the research dis- as a Systems Engineering Discipline, cussed in this paper are: 2005, While the HKM Framework does not pro- http://www.niwotridge.com/PMasSE/i vide a theory of systems engineering, it ndex.html, last accessed 20 December does provide a platform for further re- 2006 search into the nature of systems engineer- Allison, J. S. and Cook, S. C., "The New Era ing. in Military Systems Thinking and The HKM Framework embodies the (A), Practice", First Regional Symposium (F) and (M) of systems engineering and of the Systems Engineering Society of hence can be considered as a candidate for Australia INCOSE Region 6 (SETE the first formal representation of the disci- 98), Canberra, Australia, 1998. pline. ANSI/EIA-632, Processes for Engineering a System, American National Standards
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 12 Institute and Electronics Industries As- Conference, Coventry, England, 1994. sociation, 1999. Cook, S. C., Principles of Systems Engineer- Arnold, S. (Editor), ISO 15288 Systems engi- ing - Course Notes, Systems Engineer- neering — System life cycle processes, ing and Evaluation Centre, University International Standards Organisation, of South Australia, Adelaide, 2003. 2002. Cook, S. C., Kasser, J. E. and Ferris, T. L. J., Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G., Information "Elements of a Framework for the En- Systems Development: Methodologies, gineering of Complex Systems", the Techniques and Tools, McGraw-Hill 9th ANZSYS Conference, Melbourne, Education (UK), Maidenhead, 2003. 2003. Badaway, M., "Educating Technologists in Darke, P. and Shanks, G. G., "User Viewpoint Management of Technology", EMR Modelling: understanding and Vol (1995), Number Fall. representing user viewpoints during Blanchard, B. and Fabrycky, W., Systems En- requirements definition", Information gineering and Analysis, Prentice Hall, Systems Journal Vol 7 (1997), Number 1981. 3, Pp: 213-219. Bottomly, P. C., Brook, P., Morris, P. W. and Eisner, H., Project and systems engineering Stevens, R., "A Study of the Relation- management, Wiley, 2002. ship of Systems Engineering to Project Faulconbridge, R. I. and Ryan, M. J., Manag- Management", Fourth Annual Sympo- ing Complex Technical Projects: A sium of the INCOSE-UK, 1998. Systems Engineering Approach, Ar- Brekka, L. T., Picardal, C. and Vlay, G. J., tech House, Boston, 2003. "Integrated Application of Risk Man- Flood, R. L. and Jackson, M. C., Creative agement and Cost of Quality", The 4th Problem Solving, Wiley, 1991. Annual International Symposium of Friedman, G., "On the Unification of Systems the NCOSE, 1994. Engineering", INSIGHT Vol 8 (2006), Buede, D. M., The Engineering Design of Sys- Number 2, Pp: 16-17. tems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000. Goode, H. H. and Machol, R. E., Systems En- Chapanis, A., "Human Engineering," Opera- gineering, McGraw-Hill, 1959. tions Research and Systems Engineer- Hall, A. D., A Methodology for Systems Engi- ing, C. D. Flagle, W. H. Huggins and neering, D. Van Nostrand Company R. H. Roy (Editors), Johns Hopkins Inc., Princeton, NJ, 1962. Press, Baltimore, 1960. Hall, C. S. and Lindzey, G., Theories of Per- Checkland, P. and Holwell, S., Information, sonality, John Wiley & Sons, 1957. Systems and Information Systems: Hari, A., Kasser, J. E. and Weiss, M. P., "How making sense of the field, vol. Chiche- lessons learnt from creating require- ster, John Wiley & Sons, 1998. ments for complex systems using QFD Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., Soft Sytems Me- led to the evolution of a process for thodology in Action, John Wiley & creating quality requirements for com- Sons, 1990. plex systems", Systems Engineering: Churchman, C. W., The Systems Approach The Journal of the International Coun- and its Enemies, Basic Books, Inc., cil on Systems Engineering Vol 10 New York, 1979. (2007), Number 1, Pp: 45-63. Clausing, D. and Cohen, L., "Recent Devel- Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D., "The House of opments in QFD in the United States", Quality", Harvard Business Review Institution of Mechanical Engineering Vol May-June (1988), Number, Pp:
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 13 63-65. Rochester, New York, 2005. Hill, J. D. and Warfield, J. N., "Unified Pro- Kasser, J. E., "Reducing the cost of doing gram Planning", IEEE Transactions on work by an order of magnitude (by ap- Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Vol plying systems thinking to systems en- SMC-2 (1972), Number 5, Pp: 610- gineering)", 21st Centre of Excellence 621. Workshop: Challenges for life-based Hitchins, D. K., World Class Systems Engi- systems development, Tokyo, Japan, neering - the five layer Model, 2000, 2006. http://www.hitchins.net/5layer.html, Kasser, J. E. and Massie, A., "A Framework last accessed 3 November 2006 for a Systems Engineering Body of Jackson, M. C. and Keys, P., "Towards a Sys- Knowledge", 11th International Sym- tem of Systems Methodologies", Jour- posium of the INCOSE, INCOSE, nal of the Operations Research Society Melbourne, Australia, 2001. Vol 35 (1984), Number 6, Pp: 473- Kasser, J. E. and Palmer, K., "Reducing and 486. Managing Complexity by Changing Johnson, E. A., "The Executive, the Organisa- the Boundaries of the System", the tion and Operations Research," Opera- Conference on Systems Engineering tions Research for Management, Vo- Research, Hoboken NJ, 2005. lume 1., J. F. McCloskey and F. N. Kasser, J. E. and Schermerhorn, R., "Gaining Trefethen (Editors), The Johns the Competitive Edge through Effec- Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1954. tive Systems Engineering", The 4th Johnson, S. B., "Three Approaches to Big Annual International Symposium of Technology: Operations Research, the NCOSE, San Jose, CA, 1994. Systems Engineering, and Project Kline, S. J., Conceptual Foundations for Mul- Management", Technology and Cul- tidisciplinary Thinking, Stanford Uni- ture Vol (1997), Number, Pp: 891-919. versity Press, Stanford, 1995. Kasser, J. E., Applying Total Quality Man- Maier, M. K. and Rechtin, E., The Art of Sys- agement to Systems Engineering, Ar- tems Architecting, CRC Press, 2000. tech House, Boston, 1995. Mar, B. W., "Systems Engineering Basics", Kasser, J. E., "Systems Engineering: Myth or Systems Engineering: The Journal of Reality", The 6th International Sympo- INCOSE Vol 1 (1994), Number 1, Pp: sium of the INCOSE, Boston, MA., 7-15. 1996. Martin, J. N., "The PMTE Paradigm: Explor- Kasser, J. E., "The Certified Systems Engineer ing the Relationship Between Systems - It's About Time!" The Systems Engi- Engineering Processes and Tools", 4th neering, Test and Evaluation (SETE) Annual International Symposium of Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 2000. the National Council on Systems En- Kasser, J. E., "Systems Engineering: An Alter- gineering, INCOSE, San Jose, CA, native Management Paradigm." The 1994. Systems Engineering and Evaluation Maslow, A. H., A Theory of Human Motiva- Conference (SETE 2002), Sydney tion, Harper & Row, 1954. Australia, 2002. Maslow, A. H., Toward a Psychology of Be- Kasser, J. E., "Introducing the Role of Process ing, Van Nostrand, 1968. Architecting", The 15th International Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality, Symposium of the International Coun- Harper & Row, 1970. cil on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), Memory Jogger, "Memory Jogger,"
Conference on Systems Engineering Research 2007, Paper 057 Page 14 GOAL/QPC, Mathuen, MA, 1985. Biography Mooz, H. and Forsberg, K., "Visualizing Sys- tems Engineering and Project Man- Dr. Joseph Kasser has been a practising sys- agement as an Integrated Success", tems engineer for more than 35 years. He is an The 7th Annual International Sympo- INCOSE Fellow and the author of "Applying sium of the INCOSE, 1997. Total Quality Management to Systems Engi- Murray, H. A., Explorations in Personality, neering" and many INCOSE symposia papers. Oxford University Press,, 1938. He holds a Doctor of Science in Engineering Priest, J. W. and Sánchez, J. M., Product De- Management from The George Washington velopment and Design for Manufactur- University, and is a Certified Manager. He is ing, Marcel Dekker, 2001. Deputy Director and an Associate Research Roe, C. L., "The Role of the Project Manager Professor at the Systems Engineering and in Systems Engineering", The 5th An- Evaluation Centre at the University of South nual International Symposium of the Australia. He teaches online and in the class- NCOSE, 1995. room as well as performing research into the Roy, R. H., "The Development and Future of nature of systems engineering and the proper- Operations Research and Systems En- ties of object-oriented requirements. He is a gineering," Operations Research and recipient of NASA‟s Manned Space Flight Systems Engineering, C. D. Flagle, W. Awareness Award (Silver Snoopy) for quality H. Huggins and R. H. Roy (Editors), and technical excellence for performing and Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1960. directing systems engineering and many other Saaty, T., Decision Making for Leaders, RWS awards and commendations. Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990. Sage, A., Systems Management for Informa- tion Technology and Software Engi- neering, Wiley, 1995. Sheard, S. A., "Twelve Systems Engineering Roles", The 6th Annual International Symposium of the NCOSE, 1996. Shenhar, A. J. and Bonen, Z., "The New Tax- onomy of Systems: Toward an Adap- tive Systems Engineering Framework", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans Vol 27 (1997), Number 2, Pp: 137 - 145. Wood, J. and Silver, D., Joint Application De- velopment, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1995. Wymore, A. W., Model-Based Systems Engi- neering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1993. Wymore, A. W., "Model-Based Systems Engi- neering", Systems Engineering: The Journal of INCOSE Vol 1 (1994), Number 1, Pp: 83-92.
You can also read
NEXT SLIDES ... Cancel