Abstract. At this time, systems engineering has no recognized body of knowledge. Without such a body of knowledge, systems engineers have difficulty agreeing on exactly what systems engineering should be and academia has difficulty in teaching it. This paper first summarizes a number of models of systems engineering and proposes a framework for a systems engineering body of knowledge (SEBOK) based on a combination of two of the models. The paper then proposes a road map for the development of the SEBOK, a way to offer a world class postgraduate degree and closes with some perspectives on systems engineering that become visible when system engineering is viewed within the framework.

No abstract

Abstract1 . This is a paper on thinking about thinking. Systems engineering is an emerging discipline in the area of defining and solving problems in the manner of (Wymore, 1993). The emerging paradigm for problem solving is "systems thinking". Both systems engineering and systems thinking have recognized the need to view a system from more than one perspective. This paper proposes a set of perspectives for applying systems thinking in systems engineering and then defines a systems thinking perspective set of views for a system, the use of which will provide one way of aligning systems thinking to systems engineering. The paper then provides an example of applying the set of perspectives to the Royal Air Force Battle of Britain Air Defence System and shows that not only does the set of perspectives provide a way to model the system; it also picked up two potentially fatal flaws in the system. The paper then concludes with some observations on the state of systems engineering from a number of the perspectives. The need for systems thinkingThe need for systems thinking is widely recognized at this time. Figuring out how to meet the need and actually apply systems thinking in a systemic and systematic manner constitutes a problem yet to be solved. Absolving the problem is traditionally known as "ostrich management". This approach ignores the problem or imagines that it will eventually disappear on its own.Resolving the problem is a traditional systems engineering approach to removing or suppressing the problem. This approach takes appropriate action based on experience, common sense and expertise.Optimizing the solution is another traditional systems engineering approach based on working out an outcome through experimentation or analysis.Dissolving the problem. This approach redesigns the system containing the problem or changes the perspective from which the problem is viewed to produce an innovative solution.

This paper discusses the need for competent systems engineers, the differences between nine current ways of assessing competencies (competency models) and the difficulty of comparing the competency models due to the different ways each model groups the competencies. The paper then introduces a competency model maturity framework (CMMF) for benchmarking competency models of systems engineers. The paper benchmarks the nine models using the CMMF and a surprising finding was an error of omission in all nine models. The paper shows that the CMMF can also be used as the basis for developing an original model for a specific organization in a specific time and place and concludes with suggestions for future research.

Research has shown that there is an on‐going consensus that: good requirements are critical to the success of a project the current requirements paradigm produces poorly written requirements and ways of producing better requirements have been around for more than 20 years. So, instead of producing yet another paper on how to write better requirements, this paper begins by posing the following question: why do systems and software engineers continue to produce poor requirements when ways to write good requirements have been documented in conference papers and textbooks? The paper then documents findings from research into the problem via the systems thinking perspectives and hypothesises that there are two requirements paradigms; the original A paradigm and the current B paradigm which is inherently flawed. The paper then dissolves the problem of poor requirements by applying technology to reduce the need for most of the requirements written today.