Dear Colleague,
SyEN is an independent free newsletter containing informative reading for the technical project professional, with scores of news and other items summarizing developments in the field, including related industry, month by month. This newsletter and a newsletter archive are also available at www.ppi-int.com.
Systems engineering can be thought of as the problem-independent, and solution/technology-independent, principles and methods related to the successful engineering of systems, to meet stakeholder requirements and maximize value delivered to stakeholders in accordance with their values.
If you are presently receiving this newsletter from an associate, you may receive the newsletter directly in future by signing up for this free service of PPI, using the form at www.ppi-int.com. If you do not wish to receive future SE eNewsletters, please reply to the notifying e-mail with "Remove" in the subject line, from the same email address. Your removal will be confirmed, by email.
We hope that you find this newsletter to be informative and useful. Please tell us what you think. Email to: contact@ppi-int.com.
A Quotation to Open On
Featured Article
Systems Engineering News
Featured Society - OMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG)
INCOSE Technical Operations - Systems Engineering Standards Resource Center
Systems Engineering Software Tools News
Systems Engineering Books, Reports, Articles and Papers
Conferences and Meetings
Education and Academia
Some Systems Engineering-Relevant Websites
Standards and Guides
Some Definitions to Close On - Military Doctrine
PPI News
PPI Events
"I believe that quality level is determined primarily by the actual design of the product itself, not by quality control in the production process." - Hideo Sugiura, Chairperson (retired), Honda Motor Company
Modern engineering is continuing to push the boundaries, just like the civil engineering of the previous centuries did within the context of those days. Building the large span bridges like the Golden Gate Bridge shown above, was not a simple feat. Engineers had to consider new materials, new ways of construction, the geography of the region (on a known planetary fault line and prone to earthquakes), and many other issues. What is interesting is that engineers have been using models since antiquity to first of all sell their concepts, and then to ensure that the final product adhered to the original intent as closely as possible.
In this short article I want to consider the challenges faced by modern system engineers dealing with complexity. A short introduction to the concept of complexity (and why it is relevant to system engineering) will be followed by some ideas around the modelling of systems that exhibit the properties of complex systems.
There are many definitions and descriptions for the concept of complexity. I like to consider complex systems, mainly because complexity can be thought of as a systemic property [1]. Furthermore, my interest in this article is in those systems with a multitude of interacting, hierarchical elements, some of which may be human, or elements with non-linear behaviour, like fuzzy control systems. The problem with these types of systems is that is almost impossible to determine how all the elements may interact at any given time, or what sort of system level behaviour may emerge. Given a certain behaviour, it follows that it is also difficult to understand how each of the components contribute to the observed, emergent operation.
Complex systems are sensitive to small perturbations: this immediately raises concerns around repeatability, and what worked last time may turn out not to be a solution this time. If the system adapts over time, as all complex systems do, it implies that a strategy that worked today may not work tomorrow. Casti [2] gives us a few pointers to try and identify complex systems. Complex systems:
Agents are entities with input-output behaviour, acting on information and adaptive, taking history into consideration, so they can compare past with present. It has access to a basic learning algorithm. The number of agents is more than a few, but less than a multitude. This means that there is enough interaction to ensure richness, but not so much that we can approximate the behaviour by statistics. Small world interactions dictate that a network is established between “nearest” neighbours and no single agent has access to all the signals in the environment, but relies on the network for access to information. To design and instantiate any system to work in such an environment or to be a part of such a system, one must understand if it itself will be a complex system and how to bound the design space.
By definition a system has a boundary and complex systems have “ports” or porous boundaries through which they interact with the environment (which one could see as a system too). The complex system derives information from the environment, acts on it and reacts on feedback. This supplies the complex system with context and obviously makes demarcation of the appropriate boundary to the space to be considered during design. Philosophically speaking, if one considers the Universe a system, the big question is where the boundaries are, and how the system is “open”. If it is not open, one can claim that it is not complex! In any socio-technical system (a collection of human or “aware” agents and machine elements that interact in an integrated way), the system behaviour arises from multiple interactions amongst the constituent parts, and in as a result of its contextual connectedness to the environment in which it is embedded [3].
As I am interested in developing some ideas around the engineering of systems-of-systems, my argument is that “boundary” establishment and management must be seen as a crucial part of the initial work. Without understanding how the system interacts with its environment, and where the environment “begins and ends”, the task of defining the system context in any sense – ontologically or phenomenologically, is almost impossible.
In short then, most of our modern systems are of a socio-technical nature and are complex. New service-oriented systems must be devised daily, for example and it is expected that the system engineer will ensure that the delivered solutions match the (rapidly changing) market requirements, that it can be adapted over time and sustained and serviced as needed over its full life cycle, and that it is (and remains) interoperable with other systems [4] amongst other things. How do we go about successfully defining and developing new systems in such an environment?
In a recent book on the topic of the design of complex systems, Aslaksen [5] makes an urgent case for top-down design approaches to ensure that systems achieve their required operational goals. I have adapted his diagram slightly to highlight the process.
We are all aware of the fact that almost all the large projects we encounter these days require new technology innovations. What Aslaksen is saying is that if we start from our established base and we design solutions with that context only, we will get more of the same and possibly a large mismatch with the required capability of the system. His counter proposal is to start with the conceptual functional solution. I am saying that a process in a tight cycle with bottom-up methods should be followed and the way to achieve this is to use modelling extensively to synthesise existing and conceptual technologies and processes into a continuous evolutionary solution space. This does not mean that we have a shifting baseline in the worst sense, but rather that the technology trends can be utilized more effectively to track the changing requirements space as part of a through-life approach to the solution.
According to Cilliers [6], modelling allows us to build an understanding of things. At the same time he is careful to state that complex systems may be problematic in this sense and one of the reasons mentioned [7] is the notion of incompressibility. The idea is that there is no accurate model of the system that is simpler than the system itself: we need to use the system as the model! This is perfectly reasonable from a philosophical perspective, but has limited value in engineering. As a physicist I believe that Cilliers is correct and as an engineer I hold that we must find ways to work around his constraint. Indeed, Cilliers specifically does not argue against modelling, but only argues that no perfect model can be found for a complex system.
Going back to an earlier statement that the system boundary management is a key element of system engineering, it may be possible to use modelling techniques and tools that start from context setting to derive reasonable and appropriate system solutions. The context will dictate the level of detail needed in the functional and ontological sense. Building software models in a cyclic manner, that is, modelling more detail in a functional sense only up to the point that the system elements seem to deliver a coherent solution to the need, may hold the key. The following diagram shows what modelling methods are appropriate to describe what type of phenomena.
Some models in physics approach the laws of nature, like the conservation of energy. It is possible to write down equations for these relationships that accurately describe the phenomenon to the best of our current knowledge. I refer to these on the Y-axis as puzzles. At the other end of the scale are the messy realities where we know that it is difficult to derive an optimal solution. We have no way of knowing that we have indeed discovered an optimal solution, or if one in fact exists. Here the only way to describe the problem would be to have a model that frames the context and relationships, a qualitative model rather than a quantitative one.
The interesting thing is that once such a descriptive and coherent model exists, it becomes possible to derive functional and causal models at the level of system behaviour, which in turn allows us to understand how the system elements may be interacting. This does not mean that we have a full understanding of the non-linearities in the system. It only means that we can isolate contextual blocks that can yield to known design approaches, like SysML [8]. Constantly jumping into the detail and then standing back to evaluate the result allows us to develop a system level model and understanding that may be used to design the first functional description of the complex system we need to develop.
Command and Control (C&C) in military systems is not a simple thing to model as it relies heavily on the people making decisions and advanced supporting technologies, like networks, radios, etc. It is a classic social-technical system.
A current project allows us to experiment with the methods described above in this domain of military affairs. The goal is to develop an adaptive doctrine and resulting C&C for use in modern warfare. It was found that setting a context and describing the boundary of the system to be developed highlighted several issues. It was discovered that the C&C remains complex, no matter what functional level or hierarchical level of military organization was designated. C&C remains complex in the sense described by Casti and listed earlier, whether it is studied at the level of an air defence battery, or at the level of a battalion. The people and their actions and decision processes are core elements that drive the system behaviour.
However, it is recognized that in terms of relationships and patterns, one can make a case for a process description that could scale, given that the human agents are modelled to interact in a non-linear way with the process, in response to a well defined set of environmental stimuli. Mixing event based (process modelling) and agent based modelling seems to yield a system model that has emergent behaviour that is coherent and similar to that of the real systems.
A top-down and bottoms up cycle is used to link functionality required with known technological constraints or parameters. By “stretching” the ability of the technologies or the doctrine or both, better fit with the stated needs can be demonstrated. From the perspective of the discipline of Systems Engineering, this is a promising result, because once the functional description of the system emerges, classic processes can be used to develop the requirements and to turn out feasible solutions. Once this is done, it is possible to procure systems off the shelf or to develop custom modifications to fit with a local requirement.
Although it is not possible to develop absolute models of complex systems, it is still possible to develop a range of models that will allow the systems engineer to gain the upper hand in the design and delivery of real working systems. The new understanding about the nature of socio-technical systems can be used in this endeavour. I argued that proper contextualization and boundary setting is a critical pre-condition for success. Too often the pressure is there to start from the current technology base and building blocks, with the result that more of the same, and mostly off-the-mark solutions are delivered. The expectations that more smart systems will be developed to support humankind, will grow. With it the tools and approaches have to develop rapidly to take the new reality into account.
Jan Roodt is a member of INCOSE and a registered practicing scientist at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa. In his capacity as Contracts R&D Manager he has established several new areas of technology research and application for the RSA DoD, including a capability for applied research in Command and Control and an application area focused on modelling and simulation for acquisition decision support (MSADS). Jan holds a PhD in Engineering Science from the University of Stellenbosch and will relocate to Dunedin in New Zealand during July 2010, where he plans to start a small consultancy.
The goal of the Doctoral symposium is to provide a forum in which PhD students can present their work in progress and to foster the role of MODELS as a premier venue for research in model-driven engineering. The symposium aims to support students by providing independent and constructive feedback about their already completed and, more importantly, planned research work.
The technical scope of the symposium covers all topics of MODELS 2010.
If you’ve ever wondered “What is systems thinking?” or wanted to know more about systems thinking in general, check out this handy 7-day series.
The Systems Engineering for Very Small and Micro Enterprises (SE for VSMEs) Working Group (WG), a WG mandated by INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering) and AFIS (Association Française d’Ingénierie Système), is conducting a survey to:
The survey can be taken at http://isosurvey.logti.etsmtl.ca/vsme_survey_eng.htm
INSIGHT is the newsletter of International Council on Systems Engineering. It is published four times per year (January, April, July, October). INSIGHT features status and information about INCOSE's technical work, local chapters, and committees and boards. Additionally, related events, editorials, book reviews, trends, and how-to-do articles that are pertinent to the many aspects of a systems engineer's job are also included, as space permits.
Upcoming submission deadlines and themes for INSIGHT
| Issue | Submission Date for General Articles | Theme | Theme Editor | Deadline for Theme Article Proposal* |
| 3rd Qtr 2010 | 8 Aug 2010** | 2010 International Symposium Coverage: Chicago, Illinois, USA | Jack Stein | 11 Nov 2009 |
| 4th Qtr 2010 | 15 Oct 2010 | Systems Development from Deep Sea to Deep Space: Lessons from the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab | Mike O'Driscoll and Sam Seymour | |
| 1st Qtr 2011 | 15 Feb 2011 | Knowledge Management for Systems Engineering | Regina Griego | 21 May 2010 |
| 2nd Qtr 2011 | 15 May 2011 | Systems of Systems and Self-Organizing Security** | Rick Dove, Ken Kepchar, Jennifer Bayuk |
*Submission deadline moves according to International Symposium date
** Please contact the theme editor by 18 August 2010 to propose a theme article.
INCOSE UK is now looking to broaden its knowledge of the UK’s systems engineering (SE) community by understanding the work systems engineers do in a little more detail. For example: are they being offered the right challenges and opportunities? Are they using their SE skills as they would like? What do they find most rewarding from their career as a systems engineer? The answers to these and similar questions will guide INCOSE UK in how it continues to support systems engineering across the UK
INCOSE Technical Operations announced the release of the UK Competencies Framework and Guide for use by INCOSE members. The documents are posted on INCOSE Connect as INCOSE Technical Products. The INCOSE Open Website has a description of the documents in the Products & Publications area, with a link to their location in Connect.
As of May 2010, the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook Version 3.2 can now be used to prepare for the certification exam used for CSEP and ASEP. As previously announced by INCOSE, Version 3.1 can also be used to prepare for the certification exam through January 2011 (i.e., you can use either version 3.2 or 3.1 to prepare). After January 2011, only Version 3.2 of the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook will be used as the basis for the certification exam, and Version 3.1 will be retired. This timing allows a transition period for those already using Version 3.1 of the handbook to prepare for the examination.
April Issue of INSIGHT: Reflections on the Technical Engine of INCOSE - http://www.incose.org/ProductsPubs/periodicals/insight.aspx
Systems Engineering Volume 13 Issue 1 - http://www.incose.org/ProductsPubs/periodicals/journalofsystems.aspx
The OMG SysML v. 1.2 minor revision, which customizes UML v. 2.3 for systems engineering applications, is now available. The revision can be downloaded from the SysML.org Specifications page
(http://www.sysml.org/specs.htm) or the OMG web site.
A new release of the IIBA® Business Analysis Competency Model, just released, adds:
This release the Competency Model and Self Assessment Tool are available as a personal use, read-only copy, free to IIBA members. Non-members can purchase a personal use, read-only copy for $25USD.
The Object Management Group™ (OMG™) has been an international, open membership, not-for-profit computer industry consortium since 1989. Any organization may join OMG and participate in its standards-setting process.
Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) supports evolution of model-based systems engineering standards to achieve the following goals:
Unified Modeling Language (UML) has become a standard modeling language amongst the software engineering community.
A decision to pursue UML for systems engineering (SE) was made following a series of discussions at the International Workshop of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) in January, 2001. Dave Oliver represented INCOSE at the OMG Technical meeting in July '2001, to initiate a liaison with the OMG to support evolution of UML for Systems Engineering . At the meeting, a Memorandum of Understanding between OMG and INCOSE was signed, and the Systems Engineering Domains Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) was chartered. Sanford Friedenthal was identified as the INCOSE liaison to the OMG and SE DSIG chair. The SE DSIG kickoff meeting was held on September 13, 2001 in Toronto.
The initial phase of the SE DSIG focused on developing the requirements for UML for Systems Engineering. This effort included several activities including the issuance of a Request For Information (RFI) on how UML is being applied to systems engineering, support for the development of a Systems Engineering Conceptual Model, collaboration activities with the UML 2 Submission Teams, and development of a detailed requirements analysis for UML for SE. This phase culminated at the OMG Technical Meeting in Orlando on March 28, 2003 with the issuance of the UML for Systems Engineering RFP. Refer to the INCOSE 2003 paper entitled :"Extending UML from Software to Systems" for additional background on these activities. The SysML specification was developed in response to the RFP and adopted in July '06. Information on OMG SysML™ can be found at http://www,omgsysml.org.
At the February 2-3, 2005 SE DSIG meeting in Burlingame, SE DSIG participants agreed to pursue a new standard to support the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and U.K. Ministry of Defence (MOD) Architecture Frameworks (DODAF and MODAF). At the September, 2005 OMG meeting, the UML Profile for DODAF/MODAF was issued by the OMG through the C4I Domain Task Force. The revised submissions were presented to the OMG at the March '07 OMG meeting in San Diego. Additional information on this activity can be found at http://syseng.omg.org/UPDM.htm .
The SE DSIG effort has been closely aligned with the on-going ISO AP-233 standard activity AP-233. AP-233 is focused on developing a data interchange standard for systems engineering, which is intended to provide a neutral data format to exchange systems engineering information among software tools. The ISO AP-233 project is a working group of TC-184 (Technical Committee on Industrial Automation Systems and Integration), SC4 (Subcommittee on Industrial Data Standards), and is part of the larger STEP effort, which provides standardized models and infrastructure for the exchange of product model data. The result of this effort will be part of the existing ISO 10303 standard that will provide an “Application Protocol” for Systems Engineering. One of the joint SE DSIG and AP-233 tasks is the development of the Systems Engineering Conceptual model, which is intended to help align the requirements for UML for SE and the AP-233 data interchange standard.
The SE DSIG effort is focused on establishing standards for system modeling. The system modeling is generally the result of implementing the activities and techniques which are defined by the applicable systems engineering process and methodology. There are several systems engineering process standards, including ANSI/EIA 632, IEEE 1220, and ISO/IEC 15288:2008. Each of these process standards defines the primary activities which must be performed to implement systems engineering.
A variety of other methodologies for implementing the systems engineering process also exist, including both structured and object oriented methodologies. Some examples of systems engineering methodologies are referenced in the UML for SE RFI Responses and many others can be found in the INCOSE systems engineering handbook available from the INCOSE website.
Membership of the OMG is open to companies. Through company membership of the OMG, individuals may participate in the activities of the SE DSIG.
If you are an INCOSE member who wishes to participate in the SE DSIG and your company is not already an OMG member, you may send your request via email to the SE DSIG chair (see below) with your name, email, phone, company, company address, and INCOSE member number for a free six-month OMG membership for your company. The SE DSIG chair is:
Sanford Friedenthal
Lockheed Martin Corporation
(703) 293-5557
sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com
More information: http://syseng.omg.org/
The International Council on Systems Engineering Standards Technical Committee (STC) is one of the most active communities within INCOSE. Its members are working to advance and harmonize systems engineering standards used worldwide.
ANSI/GEIA EIA-632, Processes for Engineering a System, 01 Sept 2003
Available for purchase from the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association (GEIA)
Under revision by GEIA G-47 to align with ISO/IEC 15288; early stage of development (next meeting January 2005).
EIA/IS 731.1, Systems Engineering Capability Model, Electronic Industries Alliance (Interim Standard), 01 Aug 2002
Available for purchase from the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association (GEIA)
IEEE 1220-1998, IEEE Standard for Application and Management of the Systems Engineering Process, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 01 May 1998
Available for purchase from the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association (GEIA)
Revision to align IEEE 1220 with ISO/IEC 15288 and provide a lower level of detail than 15288 is underway and due out December 2004. After that it will be fast tracked as an ISO standard.
ECSS-E-10 Space Engineering
Systems Engineering Part 1B: Requirements and process, 18 Nov 2004
Systems Engineering Part 6A: Functional and technical specifications, 09 Jan 2004
Systems Engineering Part 7A: Product data exchange, 25 August 2004
Available for download from European Cooperation for Space Standardization
ISO/IEC 15288: 2002 - System Life Cycle Processes
Available for purchase from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
JTC1/SC7/WG7
Harmonization of ISO/IEC 15288 and ISO/IEC 12207:1995 & 2 Addendum 2002, 2004 (software life cycle processes) is under development. This is nearing WD.1 (working draft 1) stage.
ISO/IEC 19760:2003 - A Guide for the Application of ISO/IEC 15288
Available for purchase from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
ISO/IEC 15504: 2004 - Information Technology - Process Assessment
JTC1/SC7/WG10
Available for purchase from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
Part 1: Concepts and vocabulary (2004)
Part 2: Performing an assessment (2003)
Part 3: Guidance on performing an assessment (2004)
Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination (2004)
Part 5: An assessment model and indicator guidance (1999)
ISO 10303-AP233, Industrial automation systems and integration -- Part 233: Systems engineering data representation
TC184/SC4/WG3/T8
Additional information available on the AP-233 website
Currently in working draft form
ANSI/AIAA G-043-1992, Guide for the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents
Being upgraded now by INCOSE and AIAA partnership
IEEE 1471, 2000: IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems
Available for purchase from IEEE
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
All you need to know is available from the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute's CMMI website
Merger of SW-CMM (from SEI) and SECM (EIA/IS 731)
Released in July 2000 (Combined SE/SW model)
Later release with IPD elements (version 1.01), Nov 2000
Might be developed into full standard by EIA
Unified Modeling Language (UML)
Available for download from the Object Modeling Group (OMG)
To be issued as ISO standard
Version 1.5 is released; version 2.0 is in finalization
Systems Modeling Language (SysML)
Latest draft is available for download from the SysML Partners website
The INCOSE Modeling & Tools Technical Committee is working with the OMG and SysML Partners to create an extension to UML version 2.0 to support systems engineering.
Ed. note: Whilst the above information is the latest which we have been able to access as a consolidated overview, many, many standards developments have taken place with participation of INCOSE since the activities reported above. These developments are reported on elsewhere in editions of SyEN. The above piece should be regarded as historical.
PivotPoint Technology Corporation announced that it is expanding its business process modeling training and is supporting the synergistic usage of two leading modeling language standards—BPMN and UML. PivotPoint's new advanced business process modeling workshops will extend its popular Essential BPMN Applied™ workshops for business analysts and software developers.
eDev launched inteGREAT Enterprise 2010 for automated requirements definition on April 6th 2010 at Microsoft Canada Head Quarters.
inteGREAT, a Microsoft BlueSky award winning product, is a requirements definition, simulation, validation, collaboration and test document automation technology that provides bidirectional integration with Team Foundation Server 2010.
Part of the
offering is this inteGREAT Acquisition Business Case and Return on Investment.
SODIUS has just released MDConnect™ for DOORS solutions that help the DOORS® user community navigate through their requirement data in Eclipse and interoperate with other applications.
IBM Rational DOORS is often used in conjunction with other lifecycle tools of various types and from multiple vendors, creating increasing challenges to design and maintain traceability throughout these projects. All the necessary interactions between those applications make integration and interoperability questions more and more critical.
This new offering enforces SODIUS’s commitment to bring innovative solutions to address interoperability challenges and allow lifecycle tools to work together
Atego has launched Artisan Studio 7.2, a major new version of its flagship model-driven development tool suite.
Artisan Studio 7.2 delivers a variety of significant new modeling capabilities and functions. Artisan Studio has been re-architected to provide role-based Editions which have been specifically designed to make the working environment more relevant and efficient for the specialist needs of Enterprise Architects, Systems Engineers and Software Engineers. Artisan Studio also adds DoDAF capabilities to complete its support for the OMG’s UPDM 1.0 standard for defense architectural frameworks. Artisan Studio 7.2 also extends Artisan Studio Reviewer with metric reporting and simplifies the user interface to Artisan Publisher as well as continuing to improve core technologies with a new model comparison tool, the Artisan Model Differencer, and adds more functionality for the Automatic Code Synchronizer and Activity Modeling.
Author: Ralph D. Stacey
Publisher: Routledge, UK, 2000
ISBN: 978-0-415-24761-0 (paperback)
978-0-415-24760-3 (hardback)
978-0-203-18468-4 (electronic)
Complexity theory is generating increasing interest amongst strategic thinkers. This fascinating book covers issues such as predictability, creativity and relationships as it considers how complexity, and its central principles of emergence and self-organization, are being used to understand organizations. The book:
Timely and controversial, Complexity and Management is essential reading for anyone interested in strategy, systems thinking, organization and management theory, and organizational change.
Ron S. Kenett, KPA, Ltd., Raanana, Israel;
Emanuel Baker, Process Strategies, Inc., Los Angeles, California, USA
Publisher: CRC Press, March 09 2010
ISBN: 9781420060508
ISBN 10: 1420060503
Presenting the state of the art in strategic planning and process improvement, Process Improvement and CMMI® for Systems and Software provides a workable approach for achieving cost-effective process improvements for systems and software. Focusing on planning, implementation, and management in system and software processes, it supplies a brief overview of basic strategic planning models and covers fundamental concepts and approaches for system and software measurement, testing, and improvements.
The book represents the significant cumulative experience of the authors who were among the first to introduce quality management to the software development processes. It introduces CMMI® and various other software and systems process models. It also provides readers with an easy-to-follow methodology for evaluating the status of development and maintenance processes and for determining the return on investment for process improvements.
The authors examine beta testing and various testing and usability programs. They highlight examples of useful metrics for monitoring process improvement projects and explain how to establish baselines against which to measure achieved improvements. Divided into four parts, this practical resource covers:
The text concludes with a realistic case study that illustrates how the process improvement effort is structured and brings together the methods, tools, and techniques discussed. Spelling out how to lay out a reasoned plan for process improvement, this book supplies readers with concrete action plans for setting up process improvement initiatives that are effective, efficient, and sustainable.
Posted on 16. Jun, 2009 in NETWORK by Bas de Baar
Finding the real cause of a project problem can be a difficult task. You have to look for patterns …
“These patterns are dynamic systems in action, a human system seen over a time period. Patterns are trends over time and involve dependencies with other systems. To spot such trends in projects we use metrics as indicators. If I have the right metrics I can ignore everything around me and focus just on the dashboard.”
A technique that can be used to find patterns and the real cause-effect-chains in projects is systems thinking. “Systems Thinking” is one of the 5 disciplines described in the famous book “The Fifth Discipline” by Peter Senge (for an overview view my posting “Fifth Discipline: What To Do When All Your Projects Are Failing“).
This is the first post in a series that will describe this technique and how to use it in your projects.
June 15 - 16, 2010, Paris, France, in conjunction with ECMFA 2010
More information
Held in conjunction with ECMFA 2010
June 15 - 18, 2010, University Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France
More information
Held in conjunction with ECMFA 2010,
June 15th-18th, 2010, University Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France
More information
June 15-18, 2010, Paris, France
More information
Held in conjunction with ECMFA 2010
June 16, 2010, University Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France
More information
June 16, 2010, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK
More information
June 20 - 23, 2010, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
More information
a satellite event of Petri Nets 2010
June 21, 2010, Braga, Portugal
More information
Colocated with ECOOP 2010
June 21 or 22, 2010 – Maribor, Slovenia
More information
10th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2010)
June 21-25, 2010, Braga, Portugal
More information
June 21-25, 2010, Braga, Portugal
More information
Collocated with Petri Nets 2010
June 21-25, 2010, Braga, Portugal
More information
June 22 - 24, 2010, Henry Ford College, Loughborough University, UK
More information
June 23, 2010, Kongresshaus, Zurich, Switzerland
More information
June 23-25 2010 Prague, Czech Republic
More information
June 26-28, 2010, Babson Conference Center, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA
More information
June 28 - 30, 2010, TEI of Larissa (Greece)
More information
Co-located with TOOLS Europe 2010, ICSMP 2010, SEAFOOD 2010, TAP 2010
June 28-July 2 2010 - Malaga, Spain
More information
Held in conjunction with REFSQ 2010, Essen, Germany
June 29, 2010, Essen, Germany
More information
Held in conjunction with REFSQ 2010, Essen, Germany
29th June 2010, in Essen, Germany
More information
Held in conjunction with REFSQ 2010, Essen, Germany
June 30, 2010, Essen, Germany
More information
In conjunction with Tools 2010 Federated Conferences.
June 30, 2010 - Malaga, Spain
More information
30 June – 2 July, 2010, Essen, Germany
More information
University College Cork, Ireland
June 30th (Opening) - July 2nd 2010
More information
(in conjunction with CSBC 2010)
July 2010, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
More information
Satellite workshop to TOOLS 2010, 1 - 2 July, 2010, Malaga.
More information
July 1-3, 2010, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
More information
July 5 - 9, 2010 in Vienna, Austria
More information
July 6, 2010, Auditorium, Engineers Australia National Office, Barton Australia
More information
Friday July 9, 2010, Eindhoven University of Technology
More information
At AAAI-2010, Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
July 11, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
More information
July 11–14, 2010, Ottawa, Canada
More information
11 - 15 July, 2010, Rosemont, IL, USA.
More information
Co-located with ISSTA 2010
July 12th or July 13th 2010, Trento, Italy
July 12 - 15 2010
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
More information
July 12 - 15 2010
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
More information
July 12-15, 2010, Cambridge, United Kingdom
More information
In conjunction with COMPSAC 2010
Seoul, Korea, July 19 - 23, 2010
More information
July 21-23, 2010, Southampton, England, UK
More information
July 25 – 29, 2010, Seoul, Korea
More information
August 4 - 6, 2010, Siam University, Bangkok, Thailand
More information
August 16, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal
More information
in conjunction with DIS 2010
August 17 2010, Aarhus, Denmark
More information
August 17 - 19, 2010, CSIR International Convention Centre, Pretoria, South Africa
More Information
To be held in conjunction with ICIS 2010
August 18 – 20, 2010, Yamagata University, Yonezawa, Japan
More information
August 22-27, 2010 - Nice, France
More information
23 - 26 August 2010
Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, Australia
More information
August 30 – Sep 3, 2010, Lyon (France)
More information
September 1st & 2nd, 2010, Valenciennes/France
More information
1-3 September 2010, Grenoble Institute of Technology, France
More information
September 05-09, 2011, Lisbon, Portugal.
More information
September, 06th-10th, 2010, University of Luxembourg, Luxemburg
More information
September 8, 2010, Valencia, Spain
More information
September 13, 2010, Hoboken, New Jersey – USA
More information
September 15-17, 2010, Dresden, Germany
More information
September 15 - 18, 2010, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA at the College of William & Mary, Computer Science Department,
More information
Co-located with the International Scientific Colloquium (IWK2010)
September 16, 2010, Ilmenau, Germany
More information
September 20-21, 2010, Antwerp, Belgium
More information
September 21, 2010, Singapore
More information
21-24 September 2010, Singapore
More information
University Residential Center of Bertinoro, Italy
23-24 September 2010
More information
September 23-24, 2010, Moscow, Russia
More information
September 26-29, 2010, São Carlos - São Paulo - Brazil
More information
September 27, 2010, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
More information
September 27-October 1, 2010, Budapest, Hungary
More information
Located at SASO 2010
September 27th, 2010, Budapest, Hungary
September 27, 2010, Sydney, Australia
More information
September 27, 2010, Sydney, Australia
More information
September 27-October 1, 2010, San Francisco
More information
Sep 27, 2010 - Oct 1, 2010, Sydney, Australia
More information
September 27-October 1, 2010, Budapest, Hungary
More information
September 27 – October 2, Leipzig, Germany
More information
27 September - 2 October, 2010. University Of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
More information
In conjunction with the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference
September 28, 2010, Sydney, Australia
More information
In conjunction with the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference
September 28, 2010, Sydney, Australia
More information
In conjunction with the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference
September 28, 2010 - Sydney, Australia
More information
To be held in conjunction with the RE 2010 Joint Conference
September 28, 2010, Sydney, Australia
More information
A satellite event of ICGT'10
September 28th 2010, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
More information
Joint with 2nd International Workshop on High Performance Computational Systems Biology (HiBi 2010)
September 30 - October 1, 2010, Twente, The Netherlands
Co-locating with
5th International Conference on Graph Transformation (ICGT 2010) , 29 September - 1 October, 2010
17th Annual workshop on Software Model Checking (SPIN 2010), 27 September - 29 September, 2010
More information
In Conjunction with Models 2010
October 3-5, 2010, Oslo, Norway
More information
In Conjunction with Models 2010
October 3-5, 2010, Oslo, Norway
More information
In Conjunction with Models 2010
October 3-8, 2010, Oslo, Norway
More information
In Conjunction with Models 2010
October 3-8, 2010, Oslo, Norway
More information
October 3-8, 2010, Oslo, Norway
More information
4 - 6 October, 2010. Keelung, Taiwan.
More information | Brochure
October 4-6, 2010, The Westin Providence, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
More information
October 11 – 14, 2010, Nancy, France
More information
October 16 – 20, Reykjavik Iceland
More information
October 17 - 20 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina
More information
October 17-21, 2010, Alexandria, VA, USA
More information
Co-located with SPLASH 2010
In cooperation with ACM SIGPLAN (PENDING)
October 18, 2010, Reno, Nevada, USA
More information
October 20 – 23, 2010, Lugano, Switzerland
More information
October 21-22,2010 , Broad Auditorium, 7 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
More information
October 25-28, 2010, Hyatt Regency Mission Bay, San Diego, CA, USA
More information
October 26 – 28, 2010, Mϋnchen, Germany
More information
October 27-28, 2010, Hersonissou, Crete, Greece
More information
October 27-29, 2010, Paris, France
More Information
Co-Located with the 21st IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)
November 1-4, 2010, San Jose, CA, USA
More information
1-4 November 2010, Vancouver, BC, Canada
More information
(Held in conjunction with ER 2010)
November 1-4, 2010, Vancouver, BC, Canada
More information
Nov 7, 2010 - Nov 8, 2010. Taipei, Taiwan
More information
November 7-10th, 2010, American Airlines Conference Center, Fort Worth, TX
More information
November 8-10, 2010, Heythrop Park Hotel, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, UK
More information
November 10-12, 2010, Medellín, Colombia
More information
November 11 - 13, 2010, Arlington, VA
More information
November 12, 2010 as part of the Enterprise Engineering Week at the Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands from the 9th of November to the 12th of November
More information
November 15-18, 2010
Hyatt Regency Tech Center – Denver, Colorado, USA
More information
Held in conjunction with the 12th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, ICFEM 2010
November 16th, 2010, Shanghai, China
More information
November 23 - 25, 2010, Sharjah-Dubai, UAE, United Arab Emirates
More information
November 26 - 28, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
More information
December 7-9, 2010, Paris, France
More information
December 10-12, 2010, National Institute Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India
More information
December 18, 2010, Bangkok, Thailand
More information
January 25-27, 2011, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
More information
March 14-16, 2011 Karlsruhe, Germany
More information
May 13 - 14, 2011, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
More information
The Institute for Advanced Systems Engineering (IASE) is an interdisciplinary research unit in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems at the University of Central Florida, U.S.A. It is home to cross disciplinary research and education programs in systems engineering, and is committed to developing advanced solutions and tools for systems engineering problems in a variety of application domains. IASE based projects are conducted through partnerships with industry leaders and government, bringing together faculty and students from multiple academic departments and colleges across the university and Central Florida industry partners.
The IASE mission is to serve the systems engineering community at large in Central Florida and around the world by:
Applications are invited for the position of Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Surrey Space Centre (SSC) on System Modelling and Requirements Verification of Robotic Spacecraft for a period of 24 months. This position involves in depth systems engineering of robotic spacecraft leading to development of accurate system level models for verification of requirements using IBM Rhapsody software- Systems Modelling Language (SysML) and Telelogic Doors.
http://www.gradschools.com/search-programs/systems-engineering
GradSchools.com is an online graduate school guide to find the best graduate schools and graduate degree programs.
Systemthinker.org is managed by a team of enthusiasts on Cybernetics, System Dynamics, Systems Thinking, Simulation and General Systems Theory. Their main goal is the creation of an efficient knowledge base and learning center that will aid the achievement of the Natural Systemic Thinking.
Original Articles and Videos for Researching Schools, Degree Programs, Careers, and Online Courses – Claiming to be the Web's Largest Education Portal
At 4th European Conference on Software Architecture
August 23, 2010, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark
IEEE Standard 1471, Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems, was published in 2000 as the first standard aimed at architecture description. In 2007, it was adopted by ISO and since then has been jointly updated by IEEE and ISO as ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description.
This tutorial introduces the key concepts and mechanisms of the newly revised standard, in the context of practical approaches to architectural rendering of software-intensive systems.
Doctrine: Fundamental principles by which the military forces guide their actions in support of objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application.
Source: NATO
Military doctrine: is a formal expression of military knowledge and thought, that the army accepts as being relevant at a given time, which covers the nature of conflict, the preparation of the army for conflict, and the method of engaging in conflict to achieve success... it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, requiring judgment in application. It does not establish dogma or provide a checklist of procedures, but is rather an authoritative guide, describing how the army thinks about fighting, not how to fight. As such it attempts to be definitive enough to guide military activity, yet versatile enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations.
Source: the Canadian Army
Military doctrine: those concepts, principles, polices, tactics, techniques, practices, and procedures which are essential to efficiency in organizing, training, equipping, and employing its tactical and service units.
Source: a U.S. Air Force Air University staff study in 1948
Military doctrine: a state's officially accepted system of scientifically founded views on the nature of modern wars and the use of the armed forces in them... Military doctrine has two aspects: social-political and military-technical. The social-political side encompasses all questions concerning methodology, economic, and social bases, the political goals of war. It is the defining and the more stable side. The other side, the military-technical, must accord with the political goals. It includes the creation of military structure, technical equipping of the armed forces, their training, definition of forms and means of conducting operations and war as a whole.
Source: The Soviet Dictionary of Basic Military Terms
Military doctrine: the concise expression of how military forces contribute to campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine
Military doctrine: the concise expression of how military forces contribute to campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements. It is a guide to action, not hard and fast rules. Doctrine provides a common frame of reference across the military. It helps standardize operations, facilitating readiness by establishing common ways of accomplishing military tasks. Doctrine links theory, history, experimentation, and practice. Its objective is to foster initiative and creative thinking. Doctrine provides the military an authoritative body of statements on how military forces conduct operations and provides a common lexicon for use by military planners and leaders.
Source: http://dictionary.babylon.com/military doctrine/
Military doctrine: provides a coherent and consistent framework of concepts, tenets, and principles that are applicable in planning and conducting operations, that are intended to assist in developing and executing operational plans.
Source: Military Doctrine: A Reference Handbook, By Bert Chapman, ISBN 878-0-3123-35233-1
PPI announces a major expansion of short courses to complement our traditional week-long in-depth courses which have been so popular over decades. The new short courses, in most cases available worldwide, on-site, immediately, include:
Contact PPI now regarding on-site delivery worldwide. For some locations, a program of short courses may be appropriate. Public offerings of these courses, and more, will be rolled out over the next few months. Call, or monitor PPI’s website.
PPI is delighted to announce the appointment of Clive Tudge as a Principal Consultant, a role that will draw upon Clive’s decades of relevant experience in systems engineering management and systems acquisition, to expand PPI’s training and consulting offerings in these fields. Based in Brisbane, Clive will serve PPI’s worldwide client base.
PPI subsidiary Certification Training International (CTI) is up and running to deliver to you outstanding CSEP (Certified Systems Engineering Professional) 4-Day training worldwide. CTI’s CSEP training is based on advanced adult learning techniques, is not the least bit boring, and has no “death by powerpoint” content at all. Total focus is on passing the CSEP examination conducted by INCOSE, painlessly and efficiently. The training accommodates CSEP based on the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbooks V3.1 (effective to 31 December 2010) and V3.2 (effective commencing 1 January 2011).
CTI has been a member of the Corporate Advisory Board of the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) since 2008, sitting alongside other industry leaders in influencing the direction of systems engineering. Visit CTI’s website for dates and places of public offerings of this training worldwide, and to register on-line. Contact PPI now regarding on-site delivery.
PPI announces an new range of educational opportunities in the field of managing successful programs (MSP). MSP® is a proven program management methodology. MSP represents the best practice of both private and public sector organizations in successfully delivering transformational change. It is designed to help organizations achieve their objectives through the implementation of a dossier of projects and activities to achieve outcomes and realize benefits of strategic importance.
PPI offers, in alliance with MetaPM, a leading program management training provider accreditited for MSP® delivery:
Visit PPI’s website for dates and places of Australian public offerings of these courses, and to register on-line. Contact PPI now regarding on-site delivery worldwide. For some locations, a program of short courses may be appropriate.
PPI announces an expanded range of education opportunities in the PRINCE2® project management methodology. PRINCE2® is a structured approach to project management. It provides a method for managing projects within a clearly defined framework. PRINCE2® describes procedures to coordinate people and activities in a project, how to design and supervise the project, and what to do if the project has to be adjusted if it doesn’t develop as planned. In the method, each process is specified with its key inputs and outputs and with specific goals and activities to be carried out, which gives an automatic control of any deviations from the plan. Divided into manageable stages, the method enables an efficient control of resources. On the basis of close monitoring, the project can be carried out in a controlled and organized way. Being a structured method widely recognized and understood, PRINCE2® provides a common language for all participants in the project. The various management roles and responsibilities involved in a project are fully described and are adaptable to suit the complexity of the project and skills of the organization.
PPI offers, in alliance with MetaPM, a PRINCE2® Registered Training Organization:
Visit PPI’s website for dates and places of Australian public offerings of the courses, and to register on-line. Contact PPI now regarding on-site delivery worldwide. For some locations, a program of short courses may be appropriate.
Upcoming locations include:
View 2010/2011 Systems Engineering Course Schedule
Upcoming locations include:
View 2010/2011 RA&SW Course Schedule
Upcoming locations include:
View 2010/2011 OCD/CONOPS Course Schedule
Upcoming locations include:
View 2010/2011 Software Engineering Course Schedule
Upcoming locations include:
View 2010/2011 Cognitive Systems Engineering Course Schedule
Kind regards from the SyEN team:
Robert Halligan, Managing Editor, email: rhalligan@ppi-int.com
Alwyn Smit, Editor, email: asmit@ppi-int.com
Luke Simpson, Production, email: lsimpson@ppi-int.com
Project Performance International
PO Box 2385, Ringwood, Vic 3134 Australia
Tel: +61 3 9876 7345
Fax: +61 3 9876 2664
Web: www.ppi-int.com
Email: contact@ppi-int.com
Tell us what you think of SyEN: email to contact@ppi-int.com
If you do not wish to receive a copy monthly of SyEN in future, please reply to this e-mail with "Remove" in the subject line. All removals are acknowledged; you may wish to contact us if acknowledgement is not received within 7 days.
COPYRIGHT 2010 PROJECT PERFORMANCE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD, ABN 33 055 311 941. May only be copied and distributed in full, and with this Copyright Notice intact.
SyEN makes informative reading for the project professional, containing scores of news and other items summarizing developments in the field of systems engineering and in directly related fields.