226
Engineering Systems Integration
that from others—the difference is profound and enlightening. Without
some depth of knowledge about conceptualizing, designing, architecting,
developing, and integrating (i.e., systems engineering) products and services, the actions to be responsive fully to situational changes and complex
problems are deficient. Any deficiencies should be immediately suggestive of
a potential problem that results from the realities of the work that could be
accomplish in keeping with the evolving expectations of stakeholders (along
with their appetites for new and novel solutions).
Principle of Constraints
When a set of solutions that appropriately satisfy the needs of key
stakeholder(s) is identified, a problem can be solved potentially. And when
key stakeholders have need(s), a problem exists. Finding the problem rather
than merely identifying the symptoms of the problem is the first task of systems engineering. “When a problem is framed appropriately, we have a clear
purpose: we agree about what we’re doing, why we are doing it, and how we
will know when we’re successful. We also have explored the context of the
problem, and have identified a perspective or point of view about what needs
to be examined” (Spetzler 2003). A principle of constraints could be stated as:
change without full measure of consideration and response eventually
results in failure of action influenced by the environment. Or, alternatively,
enlightened diversity in thinking spawns invention and innovation consistent with ever-changing circumstances. But this is not to say that only systems engineering relies on principles, but rather that principles should guide
the analysis and evaluation of information. Since systems engineering began
its evolutionary development, it has merely been slow adapting to emerging
and transforming surroundings and conditions. In this manner, systems
engineering is similar to all disciplines and fields, and changes occur only
after it is reliably shown that changes are merited. We observe a trend in
ever-increasing sophistication and complexity in solutions desired by stakeholders. And similarly, stakeholders are also lagging behind in their needs
as all parties struggle to identify the problem that appropriately can be
solved with incremental improvements in technology within the limitations
of funding and best estimates of when the new product or service is needed.
Needs notwithstanding, stakeholder demands are the driving force for systems engineering. By their nature, systems engineers will push their skills to
the limit to solve problems.
Clarion Call for Changes in Systems engineering
If it were not for a preponderance of agreement among practitioners, educators, and policy makers, systems engineering might have fared better. Keeping
up with increasing complexity; attempting to adapt to an exponentially progressive advance in intricate, interwoven, and conflicting set of stakeholder
Engineering Systems Integration
that from others—the difference is profound and enlightening. Without
some depth of knowledge about conceptualizing, designing, architecting,
developing, and integrating (i.e., systems engineering) products and services, the actions to be responsive fully to situational changes and complex
problems are deficient. Any deficiencies should be immediately suggestive of
a potential problem that results from the realities of the work that could be
accomplish in keeping with the evolving expectations of stakeholders (along
with their appetites for new and novel solutions).
Principle of Constraints
When a set of solutions that appropriately satisfy the needs of key
stakeholder(s) is identified, a problem can be solved potentially. And when
key stakeholders have need(s), a problem exists. Finding the problem rather
than merely identifying the symptoms of the problem is the first task of systems engineering. “When a problem is framed appropriately, we have a clear
purpose: we agree about what we’re doing, why we are doing it, and how we
will know when we’re successful. We also have explored the context of the
problem, and have identified a perspective or point of view about what needs
to be examined” (Spetzler 2003). A principle of constraints could be stated as:
change without full measure of consideration and response eventually
results in failure of action influenced by the environment. Or, alternatively,
enlightened diversity in thinking spawns invention and innovation consistent with ever-changing circumstances. But this is not to say that only systems engineering relies on principles, but rather that principles should guide
the analysis and evaluation of information. Since systems engineering began
its evolutionary development, it has merely been slow adapting to emerging
and transforming surroundings and conditions. In this manner, systems
engineering is similar to all disciplines and fields, and changes occur only
after it is reliably shown that changes are merited. We observe a trend in
ever-increasing sophistication and complexity in solutions desired by stakeholders. And similarly, stakeholders are also lagging behind in their needs
as all parties struggle to identify the problem that appropriately can be
solved with incremental improvements in technology within the limitations
of funding and best estimates of when the new product or service is needed.
Needs notwithstanding, stakeholder demands are the driving force for systems engineering. By their nature, systems engineers will push their skills to
the limit to solve problems.
Clarion Call for Changes in Systems engineering
If it were not for a preponderance of agreement among practitioners, educators, and policy makers, systems engineering might have fared better. Keeping
up with increasing complexity; attempting to adapt to an exponentially progressive advance in intricate, interwoven, and conflicting set of stakeholder