Chapter 1 - Introduction

Purpose: This paper deals with four layers approach for developing a tool for assessing engineering systems thinking. Every engineer and, in particular, industrial and systems engineer needs a systems view that enable to perform systems engineering tasks successfully. The paper’s purpose is to present a tool for assessing systems thinking of industrial and systems engineers. The tool may be used for industrial and systems engineering workplace selection and development, developing industrial and systems engineering curriculum, education, and training programs, as well as a standard tool for assessing industrial and systems engineers’ competencies. Design/methodology/approach: We have to find a way to evaluate a systems view or in other words, a high capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST) Since there is no known way of directly ‘measuring’ systems thinking in general and CEST, in particular, an indirect method is needed. This paper proposes an idea for developing an indirect means, i.e. a questionnaire for assessing the CEST of industrial and systems engineers. The idea is composed of four logic layers that will be presented in the paper. Findings and originality/value: Eighty-three, which later aggregated to thirty-four competencies, of successful industrial and systems engineers were identified in a previous study. They can be classified into four categories – ten cognitive competencies, eleven abilities, ten individual traits and three dealing with multidisciplinary knowledge and experience. Thus, the content validity of the proposed tool can be achieved by basing its items on the finding in the latter study. Additional studies were done on systems thinking among industrial and systems engineers and among engineers from various disciplines. One of the findings of a previous study is that in order to be a successful industrial and systems engineer, one must have both a will and interest in being an industrial and systems engineer. The three components discussed here – success in an industrial and systems engineering position, interest in industrial and systems engineering positions and CEST – are all interrelated. The will and interest to be an industrial and systems engineer means basically the desire and interest to be involved in job positions that require CEST. In other words, we may hypothesize that there is a high positive correlation between the engineering systems thinking extent (CEST) of an individual and his/her interest in what is required from successful industrial and systems engineers. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included a limited sample of industrial and systems engineers. In order to enlarge the external validity of this research, we should ask more subjects from different engineering disciplines and use additional tools such as interviews and observations. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in term of its new approach and evaluation processes

This study compares the types and quantities of knowledge that are captured by a model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) approach and a traditional architecting approach to measure the benefits of the MBSE approach in managing the complexity of a robotic space system. The MBSE approach was implemented with Cameo Systems Modeler using Systems Modeling Language (SysML) and applied to architecting an orbiting sample Capture and Orient Module (COM) system concept for a Capture, Containment, and Return System payload concept for potential Mars Sample Return. An architecture framework was established, covering system, subsystem, and assembly levels, along with structure, behavior, data, and requirements perspectives. The COM system architecture was captured in parallel using both the MBSE and non‐MBSE approaches in order to provide a side‐by‐side comparison of the approaches. The approaches were evaluated based on how well each represented the information content of the COM system architecture. A total of 4389 knowledge elements were classified using the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy knowledge dimension and used to quantitatively compare the two approaches. The MBSE approach more completely captured architectural knowledge than the non‐MBSE approach. Limitations to the SysML‐based MBSE approach were also identified, including its ability to fully represent certain high‐level conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge such as design principles, design approaches and rationales, risks, development strategies and rationales, organizational core competencies, and requirement verification methods. The overall results demonstrate the benefits of MBSE in managing the complexity of robotic space systems and strengthen the case for adopting MBSE within the systems engineering community.

According to the title, an extensive research was conducted with an objective to identify the characteristics of engineers with high ‘engineering systems thinking’ thinking skills and the processes by which it is acquired. The main question of the research was “what are the qualifications (knowledge, skills and aptitudes) required from systems engineers?” The General Systems Theory (GST) and the SCAW Model (Systematic Curriculum Alignment and Watch Model) for curriculum design of engineering disciplines constitute the theoretical frame of the research. Eighty‐three categories were found in 28 interviews, 14 lectures and 2 observation sites which may be assorted as follows: Ten categories referring to the definition of engineering systems thinking. Four categories deal with various types of systems thinking. Fifteen categories relate to knowledge required from systems engineers. Thirty‐one categories cover the skills demanded of systems engineers. Fifteen categories explore the personal aptitudes demanded of the systems engineers. Lastly, eight categories examine processes through which the system thinking capability is developed.

Traditional system engineering has been the source of most of the requirements' decomposition and management techniques. Requirements' decom‐ position and flow down concentrate on a top‐down mission oriented view. The emphasis is on functional flow (input/output), black box performance allocation, and system interaction. However, it is weak in areas like operating logic, behavior, and timeline requirements.We contrast and compare the requirements' process and management techniques for the traditional system engineering and modern software approaches. We can indicate at least one gap in the area of operating logic and timeline analysis as well as numerous important under laps.Consequently, the design of many computer‐ based systems suffers from a substantial risk at the interface between system and software design engineering. The gap, created by a failure to address operational logic, sequencing, performance and timeline requirements in both disciplines, can have a major impact on program cost, schedule, and performance. Potentially, major safety related risks may result from the gap in logic and timeline requirements' tracking and allocation. In addition, significant under laps occur in operational analysis, interface control, performance, human factors, risk analysis, trade‐off studies, reviews, and planning. Therefore, these can create a risk if the software engineering effort is weak in traditional system engineering discipline. Suggestions for reducing the gap and under lap are offered.

The article addresses the problem of determining the criteria of assessing systems thinking development within professional training in the field of Economics, as well as the issue of determining indicators and levels of systems thinking. The author conducted an analysis of dissertations on this topic resulting in identifying two ways of classification prevailing in research over the past one and a half decades - one being based on components of systems thinking and the other – on the process of problem solving using a systems approach. The author illustrates each method with a characterization of various researchers' position, considering its applicability to the experiment in terms of completeness, consistency of definitions and non-overlap of essential parameters. In the second part of the article, the author proposes the following criteria for ascertaining the formation of systemic thinking: motivational, theoretical, integrative and creative. The expected results for each of these criteria are described as four levels: insufficient, minimum, advanced, and high. The conclusion states the advantage of such a structure enabling an individualized assessment, over the previously widespread practice of generalized description of the of systems thinking levels.

This paper explores the Systems Engineering structure, strategies and tools for real world scenarios involving work with accident response planning. A systems engineering approach must be taken by the technical teams to prepare for a successful response and design the technical systems in support of the operations. The scope of this project is focused on laying out the foundation of the systems engineering approach taken to help the teams develop an accident response strategy and identify new engineering designs in support of these operations for the black box systems. This Masters project involved several interdisciplinary teams & stakeholders. Identifying the proper tools to use was key to addressing the big picture needs of the multiple stakeholders. The integrated project work primarily took place over the course of eight weeks via integrated team meetings. Other work in support of this project was conducted off-line as needed by the project lead. Details on the prospective timeline, milestones, key dates and work scope can be referenced in this paper. Key systems engineering methodologies and tools used in support of this project included but is not limited to: Market Surveys and Interviews Project Charter Feasibility Study Swim Lane Diagram Knowledge Management Plan A full suite of tools and the details regarding the application of these tools and results of this study is provided in this report. SAND2020-1243227 Stevens Institute of Technology SYS800 Dulce Barrera 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Masters Project Advisor: Professor William Bill Robinson, Stevens Institute of Technology, SYS800 Special Problems in Systems Engineering, Six Sigma Master Black Belt, https://web.stevens.edu/facultyprofile/?id=1242

As science and engineering projects are becoming increasingly more complex, sophisticated, comprehensive and multidisciplinary, there is a growing need for systems thinking skills to ensure successful project management. Systems thinking plays a major role in the initiation, effective management, and in facilitating inter-organizational tasks. This research assesses the capacity for engineering systems thinking and its contribution in carrying out a multidisciplinary project. The research also reviews the cognitive process through which systems thinking skill is acquired. The study focused on a group of students who have completed their senior design projects in high-tech industry, while their plans were being integrated into existing larger projects in the respective industrial sites. The systems thinking skill of the students was examined according to a questionnaire for assessing the Capacity for Engineering Systems Thinking (CEST). Statistical analysis shows significant differences in the students capacity for systems thinking at the beginning and end of the work (p<0.001). This research demonstrates that systems thinking skills can be improved through awareness and involvement in multidisciplinary projects.

The Department of Defense continually looks at means to control the cost overruns, schedule slips and technical requirements creep so as to acquire high performing and highly complex weapons systems. This paper describes how the functions that comprise Program Integration would benefit by the proper application of Systems Engineering precepts. Program Integration requires the application of an interdisciplinary approach such as that which defines Systems Engineering. Many of the functions that define Program Integration, such as Risk Analysis, and Logistics support, already are considered Systems Engineering concepts or characteristics. The remaining Program Integration functions could likewise be incorporated under the overall Systems Engineering approach. The Air Force has struggled with getting the respective programs to transition to the Program Integration philosophy. Much of the issue relates to typical resource constraints. This paper addresses these implementation issues and makes recommendations centered on the use of Systems Engineering as the means to establish a fully functioning Program Integration effort that will result in highly-executing acquisition program offices that can execute their mission with a higher degree of success with respect to cost, schedule, and performance. Organizing such a function within an established engineering functional office are also be explored.

This paper considers the creation of Complex Engineered Systems (CESs) and the Systems Engineering approach by which they are designed. The changing nature of the challenges facing Systems Engineering is discussed, with particular focus on the increasing complexity of modern systems. It is argued that modern complexity poses a major challenge to our ability to achieve successful systems and that this complexity must be understood, predicted and measured if we are to engineer systems confidently. We acknowledge previous work which concluded that, in complex systems, failures (“accidents”) may be inevitable and unavoidable. To further explore potential tools for increasing our confidence in complex systems, we review research in the field of Complexity Theory to seek potentially useful approaches and measures and find ourselves particularly interested in the potential usefulness of relationships between the magnitudes of events and their frequency of occurrence. Complexity Theory is found to have characterized naturally occurring systems and to potentially be the source of profitable application to the systems engineering challenge, viz., the creation of complex engineered systems. We are left with the tentative conclusion that truly complex systems, with our present understanding of complex behavior, cannot be designed with a degree of confidence that is acceptable given our current expectations. We recommend that the discipline of systems engineering must investigate this issue as a matter of priority and urgency and seek to develop approaches to respond to the challenge. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 7: 25–34, 2004

Systems Thinking is currently a popular topic among the general public as well as in colleges and universities. Systems Thinking helps solve complex problems that cannot be solved using conventional means, helps engineers design functional and reliable systems, and helps to understand why the world looks and behaves as it does. However, Systems Thinking is usually not integrated into engineering curricula; instead, it is either taught as a stand-alone, independent program or course, or it is not taught at all. We believe that this is sub-optimal. Just as mathematics, physics, and computer science are integrated into engineering courses as fundamental tools, so should Systems Thinking be. Here we provide several examples demonstrating the application and benefits of Systems Thinking to a variety of engineering disciplines with the objective of convincing university administrators and instructors to integrate it into every engineering discipline.

Legal support of the use of Industry 4.0 technologies in the field of natural resource management and environmental protection

The high-performance nature of VISTA, the Visible & Infra-Red Survey Telescope for Astronomy, with its wide-field high-throughput f/1 optical design coupled with the multi-organisation, multi-disciplinary nature of the VISTA collaboration places significant demands on the project's Systems Engineering function. The project has relied heavily on a Systems Engineering approach, which has been vigorously applied throughout the conception, specification, and tendering stages of the project lifecycle, and is in place to be continued through the remaining phases of design & development, manufacture, assembly, commissioning, verification and acceptance. As the project matures from the Requirements/Design phase towards the Development and Manufacturing phase, the current status of the VISTA project is illustrated in terms of its Systems Engineering aspects, along with examples of how a formal Systems Engineering approach has resulted in benefits to the important project parameters of performance, cost and schedule. Key tools such as engineering budgets, configuration control procedures and the approach to risk management will be discussed in terms of their value to the project.

There is an increasing application of Systems Engineering in the Norwegian construction industry. This paper investigates the effects of a Systems Engineering approach on project management performance, prerequisites for success, and which elements contribute to effectiveness from a technical contractor perspective. First, we find a positive perception of Systems Engineering's effect on time, cost, and quality. Second, we provide and rank a list of 12 prerequisites for success. Third, we quantify the perceived importance of five elements of the systems engineering process. Finally, we find a disconnect between what seems to be essential processes and prerequisites and what gets done in practice. To improve Systems Engineering performance, we recommend improving Systems Engineering competence and capabilities, increasing the formality of requirements analysis and documentation, and front‐loading the effort and allocation of resources in projects.

Nowadays, in software, electronics and automotive industries, it takes 1.5–2 years for a new product to appear, although it takes 3 or even more years to develop new space instruments. The update of higher education system standards is even more conservative. It takes 10 or more years. Because of this, graduates come into the industry with outdated knowledge. Thus, the problem is to synchronize the processes of updating technologies that ensure the creation of innovative products with educational programs. It can be solved by changing the paradigm of products creation based on the synthesis of deep and interdisciplinary educational, scientific, innovative and production activities with the model-based systems engineering software and methodological tools.The existing model-based systems engineering (MBSE) Software (SW) tools based on the Systems Modelling Language (SysML) are complex and expensive. This chapter raises the question, “Is it possible to make use of MBSE SW and methodological tools available to a wide audience of users?” To answer this question, the following MBSE approaches and tools were researched: Quality Function Deployment (QFD), House of Quality (HoQ), and SysML. Consequently, five methodological tools were developed for application during space instruments design and development life cycle stages. Tools are based on SysML, QFD, HoQ improvements and synthesis, and expressed in theoretical and practical algorithms.The theoretical algorithm determines “What” (input and output data) and “How” (by using which systems engineering (including MBSE) tools are methodically analysed at the certain space instruments life cycle stage. The practical algorithm automates the development of SysML diagrams by using data structured in HoQ models and widely available SW. It reduces the time to develop and update SysML requirements diagrams from several days to some minutes and enables implementation of SysML SW by many users. Altogether, the obtained results constitute the software and methodological toolkit (SMT) called “improved Quality Function Deployment for improved House of Quality”.To disseminate the obtained results, educational materials were created and validated during lectures on systems engineering. Lectures were supplemented with seminars and practicum. Practicum was focused on the design and development (D&D) of nanosatellites in the MBSE paradigm as the single project. The results showed that the developed SMT makes it possible to implement the life cycle of the cyber-physical system in the MBSE paradigm in a cost-effective way and a short time—in 6 months, students developed, conducted synthesis and flight tests of CubeSat-format satellite prototype and prepared the project documentation. In addition, students were motivated to study science, technology, engineering and math disciplines, MBSE tools, and become transdisciplinary specialists.In addition, developed SysML requirements models were applied to examine the “Preliminary Design” product life cycle (PLC) stage of different space projects. Such application allowed quick assessment of project results, identifying non-compliance with requirements, conducting beforehand all necessary corrections and generating correct new product documentation. Taking into account the mentioned advantages of the obtained MBSE SMT, it can be concluded that its usage improves the quality and accuracy of current projects and speeds up the planning process of future analogue projects by up to 60%. Consequently, projects (their life cycle stages) can be realized faster by 5–10%.These results allow to recommend for all interested in the innovative D&D of systems to initiate: formation of educational programs based on the project approach and MBSE paradigm; preparation of MBSE materials for online and offline teaching of students and teachers; development of domestic widely available software for the development of integrated SysML models with HoQ models that assures synchronization with CAE/CAD/CAM systems; support these recommendations for the implementation of the above-mentioned research results at educational organizations of different levels. The future research is focused on the application of the developed MBSE methodological toolkit during design and development with numerical modelling and operation of several CubeSat satellites.KeywordsSystems engineeringMBSEParadigmMethodological toolkitSysMLQFDHoQ

Systems engineering (SE) is a comprehensive and structured approach for analyzing, designing, creating, and operating a system in a cost‐effective way. SE concepts are therefore concerned with the overall processes of defining, developing, operating, maintaining, and ultimately replacing quality systems. Whereas the building environmental performance concentrates on the details of individual aspects of building components and equipments (civil, mechanics, electronics, ergonometrics, etc.), SE concept needs to be integrated with all aspects necessary to realize efficient control systems in buildings. To explore this potential, the paper proposes a systems engineering approach for the design of distributed control and building performance simulation by run‐time coupling, over TCP/IP protocol suite. In particular, this paper involves a case‐study with two important steps; first consists of experiments obtained in TU Delft test‐cell in order to demonstrate a potential ability of using advanced control strategies in buildings, and then simulation results are obtained with the run‐time coupling mechanism.