Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Existing Academic Activity in Support of Systems Engineering Dennis M. Buede Academic Forum 2001 INCOSE Symposium 2 July 2001.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Existing Academic Activity in Support of Systems Engineering Dennis M. Buede Academic Forum 2001 INCOSE Symposium 2 July 2001."— Presentation transcript:

1 Existing Academic Activity in Support of Systems Engineering Dennis M. Buede Academic Forum 2001 INCOSE Symposium 2 July 2001

2 2 Education – What is it? You can observe a lot by watching. - Yogi Berra When asked what single event was most helpful in developing the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein replied, "Figuring out how to think about the problem". - W. Edwards Deming Education is that which remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school. - Albert Einstein

3 2 July 20013 Topics Define the Problem –Concept of Operations for SE Practitioners –What Do Employers Want SE Practitioners To Do How Well Describe the Current Situation Outline an Improvement –Courses To Be Taught –Teaching Methods To Be Used –Testing Methods To Be Used Summary

4 2 July 20014 Concept of Operations for SE Practitioners (SEPs) - 1 Define Problem Candidate enters Academic StandardsProf. Soc Suppliers in situ SE Education Environment produces Value Adder SEP designs and operates Value Carrier after Ring & Wymore

5 2 July 20015 Concept of Operations for SE Practitioners - 2 Define Problem Candidate enters Academic Standards Prof. Soc Suppliers in situ SE Education Environment produces Value Adder SEP designs and operates Value Carrier System Sponsor creates Project Employer On-going SE Non- SE work may operate Value Realizer fundsstaffs after Ring & Wymore SEPCourseStage SEEE SEPSE Activity Project MOE MOEMOE MOEs MOEs MOEs MOEs SE Artifact System MOEs MOEs

6 2 July 20016 What Do Employers Want: What Are the SEP MOEs? SE Practitioners To Do –Many Sources and Data Surveys –Might and Foster (NCOSE 1993) –Watts and Mar (INCOSE 1997) –ABET Survey of Industry (Lang et al., 1999) Presentations – –Boeing Recommendation (1994) –WMA Chapter Meeting, May 2000 Historical Perspective (Krick, 1969) How Well –No Sources and Data!!

7 2 July 20017 Practitioner Reports Bob McCaig –Ability to define and solve problems –Ability to communicate –Ability to learn on ones own –Ability to do trade studies –Ability to develop cost estimates Jude Franklin –Ability to communicate (write and speak) –Ability to work on a team –Ability to learn on ones own Bob Tufts –Ability to solve problems –Ability to recognize problems –General understanding of SE –Detailed training in 1+ technical areas –Ability to do trade studies –Ability to write –Ability to speak to an audience –Understand the need for the big picture Art Pyster –Ability to architect a system Present in 2+ lists Employer Wants

8 2 July 20018 INCOSE Reported Surveys Might and Foster –Requirements development –General SE process –Requirements management –Technical writing –System design methods –System architecture methods –Risk assessment –Concurrent engineering –Project management –SE tools –Test and evaluation –Simulation –SW engineering –Optimization techniques –Ethics –Communication networks –Probability –Computer architecture –Statistics –Total quality management –Database management –Reliability –Costing methods –Maintainability –Safety –Logistics –Manufacturing processes –Quality assurance –Finance –Marketing –Contract administration Watts and Mar –Basic problem solving –Development and management of requirements –Teamwork and communication –System optimization (trade studies and decision making) –System interface design –Mission analysis and design –System and component integration –Architecture development –Risk analysis and management –Systems engineering processes –Breadth of experience with different systems –System simulation and modeling skills –Design techniques –Test and verification design and management –Capture of the design data base –Commercial and military standards –Depth of knowledge in a specific system –Present and predicted technology –Project management processes –Engineering specialties (logistics, maintainability, safety, etc.) –Tools and automation –Engineering economics –Human to machine and human to human interface design Employer Wants

9 2 July 20019 ABET Survey Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility Ability to communicate effectively Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life- long learning Knowledge of contemporary issues Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice Employer Wants

10 2 July 200110 Summary of What Employers Want Ability to define and solve problems Ability to do trade studies Ability to communicate Ability to learn on ones own

11 2 July 200111 Thoughts on Metrics for How Well Quality of ability … –Theoretical constructs that must preserved –Approximations and when they make sense –Indicators of inappropriate approximations/application Cycle time –Key characteristic for systems engineering Recent industrial and academic recognition –Therefore key characteristic for SE practitioners Relates to quality Requires repetition in real world situations

12 2 July 200112 Current Situation United States –34 Graduate Programs Part time and full time students Varying Degree Titles –M.S.,M.E., Ph.D. Systems Engineering –M.S. Industrial and Systems Engineering – most common –M.S. Industrial Engineering with concentration in Systems Engineering –22 Undergraduate Programs Most accredited by ABET (Accreditation Board of Engineering Technology) Varying Degree Titles –B.S. in Systems Engineering –B.S. in Industrial and Systems Engineering –B.S. in Systems Science and Engineering Europe –6 Graduate Programs; all in England –2 Undergraduate Programs; all in England Australia: 2 Graduate Programs Asia/Mid-East: 3 Graduate Programs (Israel, South Korea, Viet Nam) America (non-US): 2 Graduate Programs (Brazil & Canada) SE Embedded in Other Engineering Programs (US – MIT; Europe – three)

13 2 July 200113 34 U.S. SE Graduate Programs Air Force Institute of Technology University of Alabama, Huntsville University of Arizona Auburn University Case Western Reserve University Cornell University University of Florida George Mason University George Washington University University of Idaho Iowa State University Johns Hopkins University Louisiana Tech University Univ. of Maryland, College Park University of Memphis University of Missouri-Rolla National Technological University New Jersey Inst. of Technology Oakland University Ohio State University Ohio University University of Pennsylvania Portland State University Rensselear Polytechnic University University of Pittsburgh Rutgers, The State University San Jose State University University of Southern California University of Southern Colorado Southern Methodist University University of South Florida Stevens Institute of Technology University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic & State Univ. Current Situation

14 2 July 200114 Characterization of 34 U.S. Programs Current Situation Are the right courses being taught? Core Courses | # Univ.81056212 SE Design & MgmtXXX OR MethodsXXX Engineering TopicsXX ManufacturingXX Special TopicsXXX MathX

15 2 July 200115 Further Characterization SE Design & Mgmt OR Methods Manufacg & SE + SE Design & Mgmt + Current Situation Avg = 3.1 Mang Math

16 2 July 200116 Outline of an Improvement Courses To Be Taught –Core Courses Key Systems Concepts Design and Architecture Management Decision & Risk Analysis –Specialization Courses –Project/Thesis Course Teaching Methods –Lecture/Test –Coached Project –On the Job Training (OJT) –Electronic-distance Testing Methods –Project Solution –Problem Solution

17 2 July 200117 Teaching Methods Lecture/Test –Good for simple concepts and methods –Not reasonable for teaching how to model Coached Project –Reinforces key modeling concepts –Keeps students on main course –Puts burden for learning on students –Works great with groups On the Job Training (OJT) –Experiential learning is best –But Takes much longer Few educated SEs to serve as coaches Just-in-time; Just- enough => Too Shallow Electronic-distance –Jury is still out –Face-to-face communication and feedback is critical Improvement

18 2 July 200118 Teaching Systems Thinking to College Freshman & IT Minors First years attempt was a failure –Unable to keep students motivated –Project attempt (build web page) Succeeded in many great web pages Failed to get concepts across Wanted project that would excite 18-22 year olds –DSMC has had success with Lego Mindstorms –Mindstorms robots require Use of hardware and software Planning and experimentation/testing Employment of SE concepts (whether good or bad)

19 2 July 200119 Course Concept Teach key systems engineering concepts with Lego robots as design lab –Initial lectures and experimentation with Lego robot Concepts: objectives, scenarios, inputs/outputs, architectures 3 week experimentation with ungraded trial runs None of the robots completed either course –Additional lectures and case studies More on concepts Case studies: Hubble failure, Black & Decker success Morphological box developed of Lego robot alternatives 3 page paper on 3 alternate Lego robot designs –4 week design period with unlimited testing More on concepts, especially objectives and architectures

20 2 July 200120 Design Project 1.% of distance on short course –Best: 100; Worst: 0% –Score: percent traveled [ 0 100 ] –3 minute time period. If your robot gets stuck distance will be measured restart the obstacle course repeated until end of 3 minutes use the longest distance 2.% of distance on long course –Best: 100%; Worst: 0% –Score: percent traveled [ 0 100 ] –Note: same as for part 1. 3.Unit Cost of parts –Best: $0 –Worst: $12,500 –Score: 100 ($11,109 – Unit Cost) / $11,109 Relative weights of objectives: –% distance on long course: 0.4 –% distance on short course: 0.4 –Unit cost of parts: 0.2 No modifications allowed to design for 2 courses except change of software program

21 2 July 200121 Obstacle Course Short Course –2 Obstacles –Lights along outside offered Long Course –Two large turns –Light rope along center offered Lighted Path Light Barriers Course 1 S F Course 2 16.5 ft 22 ft 9 ft 3 ft 1 ft Drawing not to scale

22 2 July 200122 Summary of Results Diverse set of designs –Tracks and Wheels (2 & 3) –Very limited use of sensors 2 of 10 groups used touch sensors No other sensors used –Reliance on software to traverse courses open loop –Very cheap to moderate cost Significant effort to reduce cost of designs –Dozen parts, $2278 –Highest cost: $3839 –Max Possible: $11,109 Great variation in testing –2 groups: none –2 groups: 1 time, 10-75 min. –3 groups: ~ 200 min. –2 groups: ~ 350 min. –1 group: 540 min. Results –Short course 6 groups max 2 groups less than 95% –75% –80% –Long course 6 groups max 1 group less than 95% (30%)

23 2 July 200123 2 Wheels Bumpers 3 Wheels Alternate Designs Tracks Wheels Stabilizers Front Wheel Drive

24 2 July 200124 Testing Methods Project Solution –Critical for representing real world complexity –Builds tremendous confidence –Great for group learning –But one replication not sufficient for Mastering concepts Generalizing across diverse systems Problem Solution –Works for basic concepts and methods –Provides quick, uniform feedback to build modeling skills –Useful less than 50% of the time Improvement

25 2 July 200125 Why Racing Cars & SE? Difficulty in Communicating What SE Is –Communication needs to be specific, not abstract Few domains exist with wide understanding Race cars –Too complex to be well understood –But all understand cars, or have access to someone who does Difficulty in Learning about and Researching SE –Success of SE is difficult to define Success has many, varied dimension in most domains Success in racing is very clear cut –Definition of good SE is difficult Long time constant between SE actions and success in general Race cars provide a domain with a very short time constant

26 2 July 200126 Key Products Desired High Quality Video –Uses race cars as domain –Describes SE processes –Illustrates the value of SE SE Education Laboratory –Part of research facility –Provide site for educational field trips (high school & college) –Provide case material for use in the classroom SE Research Facility –Established in conjunction with a racing team –Conducts research to improve SE knowledge across all domains using race car domain Racing team knowledge using state-of-the-art SE knowledge

27 2 July 200127 Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. William Butler Yeats

28 2 July 200128 Summary Education Problem Defined –Concept of Operations for SE Practitioners –What Do Employers Want (small sample) Ability to define and solve problems Ability to communicate Ability to learn on ones own Ability to do trade studies Current Situation – Chaos but Improving Outline of an Improvement –Courses To Be Taught – Focus on Engineering a System –Teaching Methods – Lecture/Test & Project/Coaching –Testing Methods To Be Used – Emphasis on Projects

29 2 July 200129 References Asbjornsen, O.A. and Hamann, R.J. (2000). Toward a Unified Systems Engineering Education, IEEE Transactions on SMC (Part C), Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 175-182. Bots, P.W.G. and Thissen, W.A.H. (2000). Negotiating Knowledge in Systems Engineering Curriculum Design: Shaping the Present While Struggling with the Past, IEEE Transactions on SMC (Part C), Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 197-203. Brown, D.E. and Scherer, W.T. (2000). A Comparison of Systems Engineering Programs in the United States, IEEE Transactions on SMC (Part C), Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 204-212. Franklin, J. (2000). Systems Engineering Education Requirements Presentation to INCOSE WMA Chapter. Krick, E.V. (1965). Engineering and Engineering Design, Wiley, NY. Lang, J.D., Cruse, S., McVey, F.D. and McMasters, J. (1999). Industry Expectations of New Engineers: A Survey to Assist Curriculum Designers, Journal of Engineering Education, January, pp. 43-51. McCaig, R. (2000). Engineering and Academia Presentation to INCOSE WMA Chapter. Might, R. and Foster, R. (1993). Educating System Engineers: What Industry Needs and Expects Universities or Training Programs to Teach in the 1993 NCOSE Symposium Proceedings, Arlington, VA, July, 1993. Prados, J.W. (1996). Educating Engineers for the 21 st Century: New Challenges, New Models, New Partnerships, Academic Forum at 1996 INCOSE Symposium. Pyster, A. (2000). Systems Engineering Education Requirements Presentation to INCOSE WMA Chapter. Ring, J. and Wymore, A.W. (2000). Overview of a CONOPS for an SE Education Community. in the 2000 INCOSE Symposium Proceedings, Minneapolis, July 2000. Sage, A.P. (2000). Systems Engineering Education, IEEE Transactions on SMC (Part C), Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 164-174. Sage, A.P. and Armstrong, J.E. Jr. (2000). Introduction to Systems Engineering, Wiley, NY. Tufts, R. (2000). What Kind of Skills Is Industry Looking for from Academia? Presentation to INCOSE WMA Chapter. Van Peppen, A. and Ruijgh-van der Ploeg, M. (2000). Practicing What We Teach: Quality Management of Systems-Engineering Education, IEEE Transactions on SMC (Part C), Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 189-196. Watts, J.G. and Mar, B.W. (1997). Important Skills and Knowledge to Include in Corporate Systems Engineering Training Programs. in the 1997 INCOSE Symposium Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 1997.

Download ppt "Existing Academic Activity in Support of Systems Engineering Dennis M. Buede Academic Forum 2001 INCOSE Symposium 2 July 2001."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google