SUMMARYIn electronic design the use of engineering knowledge and experience is considered important in understanding and estimating the reliability performance of complex systems. There are numerous methods proposed for eliciting this knowledge in order to ensure that the data collected are valid and reliable. In this paper we describe our experiences in implementing an elicitation process that aims to extract engineering knowledge about the impact of design changes on a new aerospace product that is a variant of an existing product. The elicitation procedures used will be outlined and the ways in which we evaluated their usefulness will be described. This research generated many useful insights from the engineers and facilitators involved in the elicitation exercise. This paper shares their perspectives on the gains and losses associated with the exercise and makes recommendations for enhancing future procedures based on the lessons learnt.

This paper explores Systems Theory (ST) contributions to improve the Systems Engineering (SE) discipline and practice. Recently, INCOSE has recognized that ST can provide a valuable theoretical and conceptual foundation to better ground the evolving SE discipline. At a fundamental level ST can be described as a set of axioms (taken for granted truths about systems) and propositions (principles, concepts, and laws that explain system behavior, structure, and performance) with a basis in the underlying science of systems. Our purpose is to bridge the gap between Systems Science and SE by exploring the practical implications for ST to improve both the SE discipline and practice. Following a short introduction to ST in the context of the SE discipline challenges, two primary objectives are pursued: (1) overview and positioning of ST for contribution to SE development, and (2) examination of articulation of ST axioms and associated propositions and their implications for enhancing SE practice. The paper closes with suggestion of the reciprocal contributions for SE and ST as well as the enhancement of SE to deal more effectively with increasingly complex systems and their problems.

This paper introduces a framework for improvement of complex system performance. Complex systems are besieged with conditions marked by increasing uncertainty, emergence, and ambiguity. Additionally, demands for increased productivity, resource efficiencies, and performance improvement make new approaches paramount for modern systems engineers. In response, a framework to improve complex system performance is developed. Following an introduction, the paper pursues four objectives: (1) introduction of Complex System Governance (CSG) as a foundation to describe essential system functions, (2) suggest system ‘pathologies’ as an explanation for deep system performance issues, (3) exploration of system performance improvement as a function of ‘requisite variety’ to compensate for deep system issues, and (4) introduce a framework for complex system performance improvement using system pathologies as ‘unab‐sorbed variety’. The paper closes with some challenges for further development of the framework for deployment and application guidance for practitioners.

The relationship between systems engineering and complex systems governance is not clear, especially given the field of ideas and methodologies supporting complex systems governance are in their early years of evolution. This paper looks to practice, drawing lessons from a case example about the role and application of systems engineering in a major reform program, especially in relation to complex systems governance, seeking to inform the evolution of both theory and practice in how these two fields of ideas work better together. The case study comes from the Australian defence maritime community. This community is transforming its approach to regulating and assuring the management of the seaworthiness of its maritime systems across multiple owners and operators and across their capability life cycles. The paper outlines the situation that created the case for change in the regulatory and management approach; and, examines the complication that caused the then Chief of Navy to change the approach half way through the six‐year transformation period. In making this change, ‘traditional’ systems engineering became less visible, and complex systems governance took precedence while still employing systems engineering principles in the design, build and implementation of the transformation program. The paper then considers three questions: what was the nature of the change, why did the change matter and what lessons do we draw for the relationship between complex systems governance and systems engineering? The authors' answers highlight the traps of not connecting the two fields of ideas. They illustrate the value of the viable systems model (VSM) as an architecture for good governance over the design, build, and implementation of change as well as its ongoing operation and evolution. They go so far as to suggest the lessons will add to the discussion of how the International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE) can implement the connections it has made between its vision and the United Nations' Sustainability Development Goals (SDG).

This paper examines Systems Thinking (ST) as a critical skill for systems engineers. There is neither a universally accepted definition nor agreement of the knowledge base for ST or how this ‘thinking skill’ is acquired. However, there is general agreement that ST is “good” and an essential skill for a future workforce, including systems engineers. Systems engineers must confront increasingly complex systems and their problems, elevating ST as an essential skill. To examine ST for systems engineers, two primary objectives are developed. First, we offer a review of the different literature and perspectives of what constitutes ST. This provides a foundation for the central themes that dominate the ST literature. Second, a framework depicting the nature, role, and utility offered by ST for systems engineers is developed. This framework provides the conceptual underpinnings of ST in relationship to Systems Theory. Emphasis is placed on ‘actionable’ ST skill development. The paper concludes with suggestions for the inculcation of ST into the development landscape for current and future systems engineers.