There is increasing interest within the rail sector in applying the concepts of systems engineering. This paper presents arguments that the balance of concerns differs between a typical project in the rail sector and one in the domains in which systems engineering was developed and that this difference, together with a lack of agreement on the scope of systems engineering and differences in tradition between systems engineering and the established rail disciplines, raise barriers to the effective and efficient importation of systems engineering ideas into the rail sector. It is suggested that the system engineering community can lower these barriers by strengthening published systems engineering guidance in certain areas, being prepared to express themselves in plain language and packaging their practices in a more portable fashion, while the rail community can help by being prepared to adapt the systems engineering approach to meet their needs better and introducing new practices in a measured and systematic fashion. The benefits to both communities are identified and found to justify the investment required to take these steps.

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.

No abstract