225
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
materials); food and shelter (continue to haunt governments’ mandate to
provide for the needs of their people); and new energy sources (that do not
contribute deleteriously to the evergreening* of our planet).
Ask “Why?”
To test the limitations of systems engineering, consider the consequences of
a rapidly changing environment. As such, there would not be any reasonable
moment of stability; instead the only predictable events would be that what is
happening now would soon be changed. The result would be an expectation
of instability predicated on the expectation of frequent unpredictable events.
If one were to harbor an attitude in such a dynamic and changing environment, that either change was harmful or living in the past was in some way
better than the uncertain future. Stakeholders might be rendered incapable
of focusing on any one problem, the result of which would carry over into
the solution domain. The consequence might be their shaping of the problem
space as an expression for their need of stability. Without applying a diversity in thinking through some structured methodology (e.g., systems engineering † ), a haphazard response with hodgepodge solutions to ill-defined
problems is bound to occur. Cognitive structures and thought processes that
are fully responsive to defining, scoping, and characterizing the problem
should be the preferred treatment. But what is the test for such thinking. Best
beware if the logic presented does not survive the “why” test. You can ask
the question “Why?” of the materials presented and you can also ask as the
presenter “Why?”. When presented with a statement, simply ask the question, “Why?”. Listen to the answer. Then ask the question “Why?” again, and
then again until the responder indicates they do not know the answer to
your last “Why?”. The importance of the question is not to expose anyone’s
ignorance other than that of yourself. The question “Why?” by itself is liberating. The answers of the question “Why?” should be thought provoking.
And the implication of the question “Why?” will free your mind (and those
inquisitive souls still listening) to be questioned, share knowledge, investigate, analyze, and remain flexible (Semler 2004). A person thinking in systems who engineers a solution for a problem that satisfies the needs of a
stakeholder(s) will have structured their answers in logical fashion, be cognizant of the trade spaces and the trade-offs, have thought through a system
design that captures the essence of a set of solutions, have architected the
needs, preferences, and influences into the enactments of the systems design,
and can relate all the previous items to the end result product or service in a
descriptive fashion of the behaviors that should be expected when the solution is implemented. Compare that response (from a systems engineer) with
* Evergreening is a made-up term that refers to the systems engineering, building, use, and
sustainment of holistic living conditions.
† Admitting bias to systems engineering thinking is respectable, even without writing it.
Integration in Systems Engineering Context
materials); food and shelter (continue to haunt governments’ mandate to
provide for the needs of their people); and new energy sources (that do not
contribute deleteriously to the evergreening* of our planet).
Ask “Why?”
To test the limitations of systems engineering, consider the consequences of
a rapidly changing environment. As such, there would not be any reasonable
moment of stability; instead the only predictable events would be that what is
happening now would soon be changed. The result would be an expectation
of instability predicated on the expectation of frequent unpredictable events.
If one were to harbor an attitude in such a dynamic and changing environment, that either change was harmful or living in the past was in some way
better than the uncertain future. Stakeholders might be rendered incapable
of focusing on any one problem, the result of which would carry over into
the solution domain. The consequence might be their shaping of the problem
space as an expression for their need of stability. Without applying a diversity in thinking through some structured methodology (e.g., systems engineering † ), a haphazard response with hodgepodge solutions to ill-defined
problems is bound to occur. Cognitive structures and thought processes that
are fully responsive to defining, scoping, and characterizing the problem
should be the preferred treatment. But what is the test for such thinking. Best
beware if the logic presented does not survive the “why” test. You can ask
the question “Why?” of the materials presented and you can also ask as the
presenter “Why?”. When presented with a statement, simply ask the question, “Why?”. Listen to the answer. Then ask the question “Why?” again, and
then again until the responder indicates they do not know the answer to
your last “Why?”. The importance of the question is not to expose anyone’s
ignorance other than that of yourself. The question “Why?” by itself is liberating. The answers of the question “Why?” should be thought provoking.
And the implication of the question “Why?” will free your mind (and those
inquisitive souls still listening) to be questioned, share knowledge, investigate, analyze, and remain flexible (Semler 2004). A person thinking in systems who engineers a solution for a problem that satisfies the needs of a
stakeholder(s) will have structured their answers in logical fashion, be cognizant of the trade spaces and the trade-offs, have thought through a system
design that captures the essence of a set of solutions, have architected the
needs, preferences, and influences into the enactments of the systems design,
and can relate all the previous items to the end result product or service in a
descriptive fashion of the behaviors that should be expected when the solution is implemented. Compare that response (from a systems engineer) with
* Evergreening is a made-up term that refers to the systems engineering, building, use, and
sustainment of holistic living conditions.
† Admitting bias to systems engineering thinking is respectable, even without writing it.