Jump to content

Talk:Systems engineering/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Key Performance Parameters

Are KPPs the same as Key Performance Indicators and Key Performance Areas? Thank you Obadiaha 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Rewrite and standardization

The article needs some rewrite and standardization along the lines of a featured article in Wikipedia. I am going to suggest -- and then subsequently perform -- moving sections around and rewriting some of the stuff here. I am thinking about SE more as a discipline than a practice. So, for instance, there are some sections like 'scope', and 'successes and failures', that may warrant clubbing(after trimming, of course) them together and later, if we wish, creating child pages for more detail. Needless to say, please review and discuss any changes that you feel are not improving this article gnusbiz 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at (and, more importantly, contribute to) the discussions about how to improve this article which are taking place here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

system lifecycle

It looked as if listing all the steps of a system lifecycle was getting too detailed and a bit confusing at this stage. Also, I wasn't able to find a good source that listed all the stages in a system lifecycle. If anyone finds that, maybe we can put it in the system lifecycle page itself. Thanks gnusbiz 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope

There were several passages that although represented the correct idea, were actually repeating the same thing in different words. moreover, the tone was a bit informal. for e.g.

In recent times, industry in general has begun to accept that the engineering of systems, both large and small, can lead to unpredictable behavior and the emergence of unforeseen system characteristics ('emergent properties').

. I have tried to condense and rephrase this statement as "the principles of Systems Engineering — holism, emergence, behavior, boundary, et al — can be applied to any system, complex or otherwise, provided systems thinking is employed at all levels."

Another thing that I've tried to accomplish -- and that must be reviewed/expanded on-- is the connection between SE, system theory, and systems thinking. Please remember that adding text with citation will be easier for other editors to improve upon. Gnusbiz 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Education

Moved up as I felt it is more relevant to show both sides of SE(practice and discipline). Again, removed un-sourced, informal text with one supported with sources. Still more work required in this section; for e.g., recent research, education outside of US and Europe, etc. Gnusbiz 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Lead in image

Does the present image reflect the interdisciplinary nature of SE well? An alternative way to present this image would be to put projects as one collage and techniques as another, and to show these two collages one below the other. Of course, if you have a better idea please share. Gnusbiz 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think the present collage is very impressive. I like it a lot as an opening-picture because it show's theory and practice. Also important is that all the parts are still recognizable. In my opinion the article itselve revives through the use of images. The text with it is in my opinion also strong, because its a good short introduction, not to complicated. - Mdd 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have however one question. I've been gather images of Systems enginieering on the Wikipedia and on WikiCommons and they are all free to use in off cause a propper way. I've no intention to use them myselve, because with the WikiProject Systems I'm doing mainly administration and organization. I do like to stimulate the use of these images and I want to ask if you can use theme or find some use of theme? - Mdd 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. That is wonderful if you have more images to share! you can post the links here, or on my talk page. If you can put the images on the SE page itself, that would be great too. Regards, Gnusbiz 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I've put the images on the Wikipedia (See at the bottum of Category:Systems engineering, on a list [1] and in WikiCommons already [2]. I like to ask you if you had noticed them already? I guess that if you don't expect them, they are hard to find.
I'm sorry I can't put the images on the page itselve, but I do like to discust this with you. I kind of run the WikiProject Systems and with that I try to limit my effort to organization, discussion, initiating and controling things. I come from the Dutch Wikipedia and limit my writing to that place.
Pleace tell me if you found them and if we can exhange some ideas about using them. There is more to it, with I can explain later - Mdd 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the images, and they are certainly worth using on this page, as well as some of the child pages that may spring up later. For instance, time charts, modeling and simulation may be used in specific sections on the SE page itself. The VEE model page is in a bad shape, and some of the pictures could go there. Right now the sections in need for pictures may be scope and education. We should however avoid posting too many images or images that depict processes specific to one industry only. What do you say? On another note, these pictures also remind me how vast SE as a topic is--a lot of work to do! Gnusbiz 14:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the VEE model article with is a small step for later. Adding an image overthere won't solve all the problems, I think. I've started a new item about the images. - Mdd 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: I think we can bring this talk-item to an end. I thnk the present image reflect the interdisciplinary nature of SE very well. - Mdd 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Further use of images in the Systems Engineering articles

Most of the images on SE in the category systems engineering and on WikiCommons are taken from the Systems Engineering Fundamentals. Defense Acquisition University Press, 2001, partly because they are copytright free. I think these images gives us more alternatives:

  • Use them to illustrate current articles
  • Use them to illustrate and improve current articles
  • Use them also as inspiration to write new articles.

Working in all of these directions do is a lot of work.

You already say so... the images reminds you how vast SE as a topic is. I guess that is a things I wanted to achieve with putting them together in the categories. The use of multiple images at once like in your lead image can give a very strong image... if the images some how fitt together.

I do agree with you we should avoid posting too many images... in one article. A good example for me is the featured Electrical engineering article. That article now 13 pictures. I hope this brings us a bit further. - Mdd 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. The second link in the list of further readings, Shishko, Robert et al. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 1995, doesn't seem to work in Holland.

You are right about the featured article. Depending on the size of the final article 13-15 images should be fine. Once we get the content right, the images will automatically get chosen. The three directions you've listed above are all relevant. Perhaps we can start with the third one "Use them also as inspiration to write new articles"
The NASA Sys. Engr. file in further readings is huge (~168 mb). I've uploaded another copy here in case you don't have this one, too. Gnusbiz 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: I think we should move this talk-item to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative talk page, because of little concern of the SE article itselve, but it concerns the SE in Wikipedia in general. - Mdd 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Wow / the definitional box

Wow! Really nice work on the article! I hadn't looked at it in a while, but it's been vastly improved of late. I particularly like the definitional box, which gathers ideas from several different sources, and the addition of images. Nice work! --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! the discussion on the initiative page helped a lot in determining the structure and content. Gnusbiz 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion had been archived, here [3]
I find like the definitional box. For me it's a new solution for a classic problem. I have some remarks arout it:
  1. I made the box a little smaller, I hope the both of you like that too.
  2. I noticed the first sentence and the INCOSE definition match. In such a case I think the fist sentence should have a reference.
  3. Although I do respect the INCOSE definition... I like to find an other opening statement. A statement that stipulates that: Systems engineering is a combination of tools, a science, and a profession, build on systems thinking and focused on the realization and deployment of successful systems.
  4. I would like to have some of the oldest definitions (from the 1950s - 1960s) in the box as well.
These are some of my ideas. - Mdd 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. What is the resolution on your monitor? I am looking at the page on a laptop (1024x768) and a 17" monitor (1280x1024) and on both the definition box is appearing very thin -- about one-two words per line. it is also extending into other sections where it probably isn't as relevant. Pushing it into other sections may make putting more images difficult too. I am not sure, but maybe we can widen it a bit (20% and 30em barely fits into the concept section); what do you think?
  2. You are right about the INCOSE def. in first sentence
  3. I agree that the lead in sentence should be a little more clear. Where is the one that you posted here from?
  4. I agree with putting oldest definitions. I'll see if I can find one. Do you know any?
Thanks very much for your help. Regards, Gnusbiz 14:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. I concur with Gnusbiz on the dimensions of the definitional box - it seems rather thin to me.
  2. At one point the INCOSE def in the leader was cited. Perhaps that got lost somewhere.
  3. I'd be happy with an alternative lead sentence, so long as it is actually traceable to a reference somewhere.
  4. I can probably dig up a definition from Goode and Machol's classic text.
--Allan McInnes (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
From Goode, Harry H. (1957). System Engineering: An Introduction to the Design of Large-scale Systems. McGraw-Hill. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help):
"The concept from the engineering standpoint is the evolution of the engineering scientist, i.e., the scientific generalist who maintains a broad outlook. The method is that of the team approach. On large-scale-system problems, teams of scientists and engineers, generalists as well as specialists, exert their joint efforts to find a solution and physically realize it...The technique has been variously called the systems approach or the team development method."
--Allan McInnes (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Harold Chestnut in his Systems Engineering Methods (1967) gave the following definition of systems engineering [p.3]:
The Systems Engineering method recognizes each system as an integrated whole even though composed of diverse, specialized structures and subfunctions. It further recognizes that any system has a number of objectives and that the balance between to optimize the overall system functions according to the weightes objectives and to archieve maximum compatibility of its parts.
Chestnut futher gives more definitions {p.36-37] drawn from the Air Force Systems Command Manual UFSCM 375-5, februari 1964:
All parts of a system must have a common unified purpose: to contribute to the production of a single set of optimum outputs from given inputs with respect to time, cost, and performance measures of effectiveness. The absolute necessity for coherence requires an organization of creative technology which lead to the succesfull design of the complex militairy system. This organized creative technology is called Systems Engineering.
Since Googde and Machol don't directly define Systems Engineering, this definition from 1964 is the oldest we now have. - Mdd 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a fair assessment. I spent quite a bit if time looking through Goode & Machol's text for an explicit definition of SE. What I posted here was about the best I could find. IIRC Wayne Wymore has an SE textbook from around the same time as Chestnut's, and which may also have a definition of SE. But I don't have access to that textbook right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: I'll dig up the Harold Chestnut's defintion from 1967: Systems Engineering Methods. Together with the Googe-Machol definition we add them to the definion box and end this item. - Mdd 22:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also like to propose here that we continu this conversation in a new talk item about definitions of SE and it's history. - Mdd 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


The dimensions of the definitional box

I'm also working on a laptop (1024x768) and a 19" monitor. On the laptop I read:

"An interdisciplinary approach and means
to enable the realization of successful
systems"[8] — INCOSE handbook

This reads just fine for me. The box crosses the holistic view and interdisciplinairy field section, instead of being stuck half way the holistic view section.

Maybe I should explain that my reference here is the timeline box [4] in the systems theory article. If you have an other reference I can image it doesn't feel good. Eventually there is also the solution to create this box horizontal ovr the hole width of the article. To me this all doesn't matter to much. - Mdd 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... maybe it's a font-size issue. I get:
"An interdisciplinary
approach and
means to enable the
realization of
successful
systems"[8] —
INCOSE handbook
I'm on a 15" laptop with a 1280x854 resolution. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Strange, it appears the same on my laptop too. But the original version was exactly as Mdd quoted above. It could be font, or, it could be uncleared cache. Gnusbiz 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just happened to use IE and the box is fine in it (does not become very thin). I usually use firefox. So basically, it's IE's fault ;) gnusbiz 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: I have broadened the definition-box a little back again, and this can end this talk-item. Anyone who doesn't like it may directly change the definition box. - Mdd 22:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


The lead sentence

The current lead sentence came 31 January 2006 from user:Cask05, see [5]. This became:

  • Systems engineering (or systems design engineering) is an interdisciplinary approach and means to enable the realization of successful systems...


Since then it changed only a little towards the current state:

  • Systems Engineering(SE) is an interdisciplinary approach and means for enabling the realization and deployment of successful systems...


This has now an amazing correspondence with Incose definition. In between I couldn't yet find any reference, sorry Allan. Above I possed the following alternative (I made one small adjustment):


Now Gnusbiz asked for the source of this statement and Allan McInnes states that any statement should be actually traceable to a reference somewhere. Now the source of my statement are my own words [6]:

5. There is a last thing I want to mention, that is the point of view to look at systems engineering. SE can be seen as a combination of tools, as a combination of sciences, or a combination of professions... depending on the way you look at it. A global encyclopedic article should combine those views. The current article has that, and that's something we should loose

Now there is some more to it, but maybe I leave it with this for the moment. - Mdd 23:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the original reference, which was added by Cask05 in this edit, was this link to the INCOSE website, which still appears as a reference in the leader, but towards the end of the paragraph.
Regarding other possible definitions, Wikipedia policy is that all facts should be traceable to a reference. I'm not saying that the definition of SE needs to be verbatim from a single reference - I'd be happy with a composite definition based on several (cited) references. But there do need to be references. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: We'll leave the lead sentence for the moment, and also don't add a reference. People may find out themselves if they read the definition box later. - Mdd 22:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Rewrite and standardization

The first part of this discussion is archived here here

This talk item is initiated by gnusbiz 21 May 2007, and has resulted in a longer discussion about improving the Systems Engineering article. The next short summary is a remainder of what we are dealing with.

gnusbiz first cointed three items, which where left onspoken:

  1. System lifecycle
  2. Scope
  3. Education

Four next items did result in some discussion, action and conclusions:

  1. Lead image: This is ok
  2. Further use of images in the Systems Engineering articles: Will be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative talk page.
  3. definitional box:
    1. arguments about the format resulted in some changes the format
    2. arguments about more possible definitions will be continue in a new talk item
  4. Lead sentence: We leaf it like this for the moment.

With the archive of this discussion on 26 june 2007 I hope to have made room for further discussion. - Mdd 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Structure

So, as of now the structure appearing on this page is as follows:

  1. History
  2. concept
  3. scope
  4. education.

Some other sections that I'd like to suggest (also based on the talk on the SE initiative pages) are:

  1. Tools
  2. Applications
    1. Sample projects (Apollo?)
  3. related fields (already present but needs rewrite).

Any suggestions? Perhaps add to this list, sections/sub-sections that serve the purpose of this page as both an introduction to SE and as part of a larger mesh with other systems topics?

Regarding SE successes and failures I am not sure of it's relevance on the main page. Can it branch out of one of the sections to a separate page? for instance, Applications. A good idea would be to keep this article short and explanatory enough as an introduction; and to have detailed pages on topics that need more information gnusbiz 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I suggested "tools", I meant it in the sense of intellectual tools (types of analyses and diagrams), rather than specific software tools. Aside from the fact that I don't think that promotion of software tools belongs in Wikipedia, the resulting section would rapidly get large, and provide the reader with little useful information about SE itself.
Regarding SE SE successes and failures, I would like to see it be compressed, and better referenced. Where it is referenced, the material it cites doesn't directly discuss SE, and the things that do discuss SE are either unreferenced or entirely speculative. Perhaps that section could be rewritten, and folded into the "Sample projects" section you've suggested.
--Allan McInnes (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The recent structure is not a flat as gnusbiz suggest. But bringing this up for discussion is a very good step. I copied the current contents:
1 History
2 Concept
2.1 Holistic view
2.2 Interdisciplinary field
2.3 Managing complexity
3 Scope
4 Education
5 Closely related fields
6 Outstanding SE successes and failures
6.1 The successes
6.2 The failures
7 See also / 8 References / 9 Further reading
Now it seems only two new items are suggest: Tools & applications. A mayor questions is how to organize this? My first idea was to make a first differentation in four parts: history, theory, practice, education & research. I then looked at the featured Electrical engineering article? That gives us a proven recipe. It has a logic of it's own: From History, to Education, to Practicing, via Tools and work to end with Sub-disciplines and Related disciplines. The question is now what fits the best here? What do we like to do? - Mdd 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
An other interesting structure I found was the structure op the Operations research article. - Mdd 23:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The 2 Concept & 3 Scope should be merged - Mdd 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Outstanding SE successes and failures (Moved from the article)

I have moved the following section from the article. I think (as we discusted before) we should rewrite it or find a better place for it. - Mdd 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The successes

Systems engineering (SE) practices were used during the critical period of ballistic missile development, both at NASA and the United States Department of Defense. The initial U.S. failures of booster programs following Sputnik were overcome, resulting in the spectacular success of the Project Apollo moon-landing program. Systems engineering successes in the design and development of the Polaris ballistic missile system led to unqualified successes of the submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missile systems that have culminated in the Trident missile D5 system. Similar successes were realized in the development of land-based missiles and in the development of military and commercial aircraft (e.g., the Boeing 777 and the various recent Airbuses). In addition, virtually all major weapons systems acquired by the U.S. military since the 1970s have been acquired using system engineering techniques.

Partly as the result of this long history of SE development in the military, military weapons use subsequent to Vietnam have generally proved to be spectacularly successful, with little unexpected failure of (even complex) weapons systems.

SE has played a major role in producing many recent 'revolutions' in technology development.

The failures

Sectionrewrite

When Systems Engineering Fails — Toward Complex Systems Engineering
"The images of success in the Manhattan and Space Projects remain with us. What really happens with large scale engineering projects is much less satisfactory. Many projects end up as failed and abandoned. This is true despite the tremendous investments that [have been] made…"

The failure of the Federal Aviation Administration's Advanced Automation System has been reasonably well documented. (See above citation.) Indeed, this represented such a complete failure, that the prime contractor sold the entire division hosting the project, over a year prior to the dénouement!

Nevertheless, the failure was not primarily a SE failure. The principal failing was that, for all of the people involved, government and contractor, managers and engineers, the AAS Program represented at least an order of magnitude larger and many magnitudes more complex than any they had ever experienced or even envisioned. And, there were entirely too many players and not enough workers. There are many valuable lessons that could be learned from it, but unlike civil engineers (whose failures usually involve civil liability), SEs rarely get an opportunity to dig deeply into their failures.

Report of the Inquiry Into The London Ambulance Service (February 1993)
"In the autumn of 1990, following the abandonment of the previous attempt to computerise the LAS Command and Control system, work commenced on the preparation of a requirements specification which would lead towards the implementation of a 'state of the art' Command and Control system. It should be noted that the previous system was abandoned after load testing revealed that it would not cope with the demands likely to be placed upon it…"

In the end, the new 'state of the art' system was abandoned after a cost of $2.5M and perhaps 20 lives. The LAS was reduced to the following coda: "The fact is that of the 26 cases considered by coroners' courts since November 1991, we are advised that not a single one has concluded that the LAS can be blamed for the death of a patient."

The Ongoing Saga of the U.S. IRS Tax Modernization Effort
The Taxman's burden, CIO Mag., 1 April 2001 "IN JANUARY, just three months before the internal revenue service planned to field a new call center application, its first system upgrade in a $10 billion modernization project, its CIO of almost three years, Paul Cosgrave, quit.
"Not surprisingly, eyebrows were raised.
"During the past 25 years, the IRS has twice tried— and twice failed— to modernize."
GOVExec, 1 August 2001
But hope springs eternal…
GOVExec, 15 April 2005 "Todd Grams, Chief Information Officer at the Internal Revenue Service believes in second chances. In the simplest terms, he believes the IRS failed in the past because it bit off more than it could chew. The sheer scope of the program 'exceeded our collective capacity to manage it,' Grams concedes candidly."

See also Large Scale Engineering and Evolutionary Change, 2002 by Yaneer Bar-Yam, New England Complex Systems Institute.

A first sentence doesn't have to be referenced

I just removed a cite needed-template from the following first sentence.

The template was placed with the argument: cite needed -Not supported by the given INCOSE ref - another is needed. Now this is not needed. In Wikipedia articles the first sentence gives an overview of the field. In most cases this is an synthesis by the authors of the article and not something, taken from an other document.

The thing is: If you think the first sentence is wrong, you just have to change it. - Mdd 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is not exempt from the requirement for verifiability. The first sentence is an assertion of fact, and as such should be verifiable. The lead sentence does not need to be "taken from an other document", but it, like the rest of the article, does need to be supported by sources. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence should quote, that: systems engineering is a field (or branch) of engineering, or an engineering discipline. Because that is a good introduction, and that is custom in the wikipedia. It's also custum to say things in your own words. - Mdd 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying things "in your own words" does not preclude the need for sources for the facts that you are asserting in those words. Generally, WP practice is to provide sources for any assertions of fact that might be challenged (see WP:V). The previous lead did contain several assertions that are subject to challenge (for example the inclusion of management practices in SE). The present lead seems less likely to be challenged (although I've seen some respected systems engineers state outright that SE is not (despite the name) a field of engineering at all), so may be able to get by without a a citation of some sort. Although IMO it wouldn't hurt to have one - the better referenced an article, the less likely it is to get filled with editor's personal opinions on a topic. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are putting to much believe, fate and trust in sources.

Have you read WP:V? Verifiability based on (reliable) sources doesn't have anything to do with what I do or do not believe or put my faith in. Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Brief History of Systems Engineering from the INCOSE, for example look to me today again like swiss cheese. There are two (maybe three (or more)) basic things about the data we put in articles:

  1. It has to represent reality
  2. It has to fit the sources.
  3. It has to fit the authors own believe.
  4. ... and it has to communicate with the audience

I'm especialy concerned with the first and third basics.

I don't put a lot of fate in sources, because they are often not just objective. Like the incose definition of SE. I believe that definition is for a specific audience. That definition is coulored by the own goals of the Incose and maybe also the NASA. The wikipedia is written for an other audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdd (talk • contribs)

I agree that many sources are not objective. I'm not particularly thrilled with some of the things that INCOSE has to say about SE. But the fact remains that they are an SE professional society, and that what they write about SE is citable. How they are cited is the key issues. Citing INCOSE's (or someone else's) opinions as fact is the worng way to go about things. Saying something like "According to INCOSE, ..." is better, since it is a (verifiable) fact that INCOSE has espoused some opinion about SE. Claiming a lack of objectivity on the part of the available sources is not a valid rationale for simply inserting your own (subjective) opinions about a subject. Wikipedia expressly bans previously unpublished ideas, and requires sources. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What INCOSE writes about SE is citable... in Wikipedia??

Only one look at WP:SOURCES clears that up:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...

INCOSE is a society for the promotion of SE. No matter how much I support that, INCOSE is far from a independent third party source. It may be reliable what they say, it better be, but their truth is motivated by their own goals. This is becoming more clear to me. I have worked on more then 100 related articles the past months and in no article any society is that present as here. The fact that one third of the SE history here is about INCOSE, is just as questionable. We should do something about it...!? - Mdd 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. As you yourself have said many times: "if you don't like it, feel free to rewrite it".
That said, what INCOSE says about SE is citable, so long it's made clear that what is being written is the opinion of INCOSE rather than an undisputed fact. Much as I disagree with some of the things that INCOSE has to say about SE, the fact remains that they are an SE society, and their views are relevant to this article.--Allan McInnes (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As a start I began writing about SE, in case you didn't notice:

In time I want to start rewriting parts of this article, but I'm still investigating SE as I also express in next talk items. - Mdd 12:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

      • All of this is somewhat confusing to the older generation and the original "Systems Engineers". As I remember my father describing the issue, it was a result of some pretty badly managed WWII programs. The original management philosophy was to have a chief engineer know all that was going on and direct all of engineering. However, with the more complex systems, this was not possible. The Army Air Corps, then becomming the Air Force, started a management class out at the Ft. Belvoir air warfare college for a "Systems" approach to engineering management. They produced a blue(?) book i think called A Systems Engineering Management Guide. So, Systems Engineering is a mis-nomer, or really a mis-inference. Systems Engineering really implies someone knowledgeable in the engineering management of the product development process. Alot of what we are seeing as CMMI today had been identified and documented as the typical SEMG processes years ago. Anyway. This is the stuff you won't see in any books because that was the generation that got it. My 2 cents. All flames rejected. [JDS] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The request for more references

I question the need for more references in the article. For example:

  • The important concept of Systems Engineering, that of perceiving whole as against parts, goes back at least to Aristotle.[2], and was probably applied to every complex system that was ever built.[citation needed]

A citation needed has been placed by the sentence "... was probably applied to every complex system that was ever built." This sentence to me is an attempt from the author to bridge the time between now and then. I beleive such a remarks don't have to be referenced. Such sentences a ment to make the article more attractive.

It may make the article "more attractive", but it's unverifiable speculation. And I don't just mean unverifiable in the Wikipedia sense, but also that it simply can't be verified at all, since we have no way of knowing if the designers of every complex system actually applied the principle or not. Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide factual information, not speculation. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also thing that it is only the superspecialist, who requires such a reference. And those persons need to know wenn to stop. For example... I can question the reference that Allan McInnes at the first sentence linking to the Artisotle aricle. I can question if Aristotle brought forward:

  • the concept of that perceiving whole as against parts

I don't even understand what this sentence means. I should have referenced it. Now I know that it probably refers to the renmark:

  • the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts

But as a superspecialist I can also put a citation needed sign on every place this is mentioned in the Wikipedia. It is not referenced in the article about Aristotles quotes. I've examened Aristotles complete work yesterday looking for it but couldn't also find it. So the question rises, did he realy say so? Is it a fact? Does it fit the sources? Shouldn't we tag it?... I beleive that tagging "references needed" should all stay within reason. And at the moment that isn't the fact.

If it's unverifiable, then it should be removed. Note that I didn't add the quote or the reference in question, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that I did. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I said it before. An alternative for tagging is changing the statement to something acceptable. The first is sometimes to easy, the second is the real challenge. - Mdd 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of tagging is to give the original author of a questionable statement a chance to address the lack of references. In the case of the "probably applied to..." phrase you mentioned above, I thought it was good phrasing, and was willing to keep it (or at least a modified version) if a reasonable citation could be found (i.e. something in which a notable person makes that claim, such that the sentence could be changed to read "...and Some Person has speculated that it has probably been applied to...". --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The particular sentence now deleted was:
  • The important concept of Systems Engineering, that of perceiving whole as against parts, goes back at least to Aristotle, and was probably applied to every complex system that was ever built...
I think the whole sentence wasn't that good. - Mdd 07:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of systems engineering books

A List of systems engineering books is being developed to get an overview of the more important books written on systems engineering, and it's historical development. If you have any information or other notable lists, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? - Mdd 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you can accept IEEE Std 1220 as a "book." BTW and FWIW, I share you hesitations re. INCOSE. I'm not sure where INCOSE's center of gravity is, but in my opinion it's definitely not in the engineering part of "systems engineering." As such, they do more harm than good. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. If you don't mind, I will answer you in two different places:

  • The question about IEEE Std 1220 have I answered in talkpage of this list, see here
  • I start here a new talk item about INCOSE's center of gravity.

- Mdd 11:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

List of systems engineering at universities

A List of systems engineering at universities is beeing developed to get a better impression of the State of the Art in SE education. If you have any information, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? -Mdd 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note of caution. A "list of systems engineering at universities" may have elements that cause confusion. For instance, I have seen universities claim courses, say Communications Systems Engineering, under the heading of Systems Engineering where the actual course addresses the engineering of communications artifacts without ever getting into the discipline of systems engineering proper. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will answer this at the Talk page of the list itselve. See here. - Mdd 11:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section need attention

The past discussion made me realize onces again, that the historical section seems way out of line of giving a representative image of the SE history. One third is about the INCOSE history. If you read it, you get the impression that SE started with INCOSE in the 1990s, while in fact the discipline emerged in the 50 years before that. - Mdd 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

INCOSE's and this article's center of gravity

Copied from a previous talk-item here

I share you hesitations re. INCOSE. I'm not sure where INCOSE's center of gravity is, but in my opinion it's definitely not in the engineering part of "systems engineering." As such, they do more harm than good. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are bringing something up with I couldn't really descripe yet. I have had a suspicion before, that there is something missing in the "center of gravity" of this article. I think, this article is more or less about Systems Engineering Management and that is not quiet the same as Systems Engineering. THis is also part of the reason, why I started a list of new lists of SE books and SE education, to get a better understanding of what SE is about...
Now I agree we have to be cautious with the current List of systems engineering at universities. But this list is beginning to tell me one thing. There is hardly only one kind of SE program at Universities, there are all kinds of SE programs...!? This is why I started to suspect that their are all kinds of types Systems Engineering as well. I am still investigating this also with the List of systems engineering books. - Mdd 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will follow the discussion and contribute where & when I can. -- Iterator12n Talk 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder If you could tell me were from you got this idea about INCOSE's main interests and if you could tell me some more about this? (... Ik vraag me trouwens ook af of jij een talenknobbel hebt en je zo uitstekend in het Nederlands weet te onderhouden, als je BABEL beweert?) Gegroet - Mdd 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. babbel, for me english is easier. Re. INCOSE, have to think about how I'll put it in words. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion here brought as news

I happen to notice that the lastest link removed here

Had an article about our discussion, brought as latest news. This website brought the headline:

INCOSE takes a bashing from writers on Wikipedia.
Written by Administrator - Oct 29, 2007 at 07:26 PM
INCOSE is taking a lot of heat from the editors over on Wikipedia. There seems to be complaints about the motivation of the organization and their goals...

The further article refers to the above discussion here about What INCOSE writes about SE is citable...?? from 4 october 2007 between Alan and me. This article clearly takes parts of it out of perspective. It's clear to me that we were not talking about INCOSE in general but just as source for this Wikipedia article according to Wikipedia policies (I also made this more clear by adjusting the title a little). If this has caused any confusion I apologize. I am teh most amazed though, that this discussion is taken a source of news. - Mdd 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Systems_engineering/Archive_2&oldid=228405056"