9.2.1 <i>The One‐eyed Systems Engineer – Pirate or Prophet?</i>: An analysis of the effectiveness of different systems engineering leadership styles

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.

Section: Figure 2 -Journey To Embed or Improve Systems Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selling Systems Engineering by Searching for the Sweet Spot

Beasley

O'Neil²

2016

“… Chief Systems Engineers aren't focusing SE on the things that matter to senior managers. Kemp and Elphick (2012) examined different leadership styles, and suggested that the style of leadership has a fundamental impact on the style and type of SE undertaken. The wrong leadership can result in SE being treated as a purely process driven set of activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Suits you sir! ‐‐ choosing the right style of SE before tailoring to fit”

Kemp

Beasley

Williams

2015

Self Cite

Despite significant evidence that Systems Engineering (SE) adds value, take‐up is patchy. There is a growing volume of evidence that the ‘understand‐plan‐do’ paradigm behind conventional Systems Engineering only works in some circumstances. We have seen situations where SE has either over‐complicated the solution or was unable to deliver quickly enough. Applying SE in these situations leads to both a specific failure and damages the credibility of SE more broadly. This paper: Proposes a new, two phase, tailoring process. Select an approach suitable for the situation then (if appropriate) decide what SE to do. Includes a Functional Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FFMEA), which identifies functional failures modes, effects and mitigation activities applicable to the first stage of the tailoring process. Illustrates the FFMEA with 7 case studies. The proposed mitigations provide a high level blueprint for an enterprise that implements conventional SE, when, and only when, appropriate.

“…Flyvberg and Gray (2009) conclude that key decision makers' incentives can drive inappropriate decisions. Kemp and Elphick (2012) believe that traditional SE education has been poor at developing SE practitioners who are able to inform and influence decision makers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

8.2.1 To V or not to V – that MUST be the Question Knowing When to Apply the Right Approach

Cowper¹,

Elphick

Kemp

et al. 2014

Self Cite

Abstract. The last 20 years have shown a dramatic expansion in Systems Engineering theory, knowledge, knowhow and practical application. Despite this increase, there is evidence within organisations that there has been a growing gap between the SE required and the SE delivered. The authors of this paper describe the results of a study into the reasons for this gap, based on an on-line survey which received 85 valid responses.The authors conclude that:• Project professionals are using approaches that are not appropriate to the problems being tackled; • Behaviour is being driven by narrow views of what organisations believe is right, rather than the broader range of practice that they allow; • Project professionals adopt preferred approaches which they apply across more than one type of problem.The authors demonstrate that there is truth in the assertion that Systems Engineers apply the same approach, irrespective of the situation. Whilst standard Systems Engineering approaches, for example the V lifecycle, are the right approach in the complicated space, it is less appropriate in simple, complex or chaotic spaces. All too often, projects start with the assumption that we should use standard Systems Engineering approaches that we have used before, rather than ask: 'To V or not to V?'