When I ask some people to describe what systems engineering (SE) entails, they often respond : “I don’t know.”, or “It’s about industrial systems or embbeded systems no ?”. The second response suggests that they do not consider systems engineering to be applicable outside of industrial or embbeded systems sectors. Another response, similar to the second above, from some in the IT sector, is : “It’s about operating systems and networks or IT systems design.”
The objective of this article is to convince the reader that SE is not a discipline that is exclusively applicable to a specific kind of product-related system within a particular business sector. Rather, if one is to take on board the key message from this article, it is that SE is about adopting a systemic (whole) perspective on situations or endeavours, especially those requiring non-trivial integrations between various human, natural and artificial interfaces.
In order to achieve this objective, I shall provide some historical, scientific and business overview perspectives. Readers may wish to consult the cited references for further insights.
SE has been adopted in the defence and space industries including by organisations such as NASA, and is now being implemented in other sectors. A primary reason for its use in the aerospace and defence sectors was to mitigate risk and maximise the success of projects and programmes and operations (all hereafter referred to as “endeavours”). Success in this context is defined as meeting schedule and budget targets, and delivering the required outcomes or capabilities. These endeavours require significant time and resources, often spanning multiple years and involving numerous organisations/departments and technical/business specialities. They entail intricate integrations and changing needs and specifications, making them challenging to execute successfully. Many have involved the development of new concepts and technologies. It is believed that the desired results could not have been achieved without a disciplined and scientific collaboration and integration among departments and specialities and various interfaces in that context.
It could be argued that it is the role of program/project management (PM) to account for this goal (i.e. mitigating risk and maximising success) in the aforementioned context. However, PM is not enough on its own. It needs to be integrated with SE. For further information, please refer to (2, Part I, Chapter 4). In summary, SE is accountable for the technical authority and required capabilities’ performance, taking PM into account. It is therefore possible that one might have practised SE without naming it or giving it another name.
Traces of SE can be seen in the planning and execution of significant historical projects such as the Pyramids in Egypt, Water distribution and irrigations systems in Mesopotamia, and others (3)(4). While there is a need to more firmly ground and develop the underlying theoretical and conceptual underpinnings for the SE discipline (4), SE has already proved necessary and applicable in various instances at various levels, including product, project, business/enterprise, industry, and socio-economic (5, 6). This demonstrates that SE is applicable not only to enterprise projects levels but also at the enterprise, industry, country, and even global levels. The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) develops and disseminates ressources on SE.
It would be unwise to overestimate the benefits that SE can bring to your business. Indeed, there have been studies into the ROI of SE for some specific types of programmes. One of the findings from Honour’s doctoral thesis is that (7) : “Technical leadership/management is unique in providing optimun program success simultaneously in cost, schedule and stakeholder acceptance. No correlation founded between SE and system technical quality.” The findings presented there are based on eight SE Activities (namely: Mission definition, Requirement Engineering, System Architecting, System Integration, Verification&Validation, Technical Analysis, Scope management, Technical Management). Nevertheless, another study (9) indicates that the more challenging your programmes (or endeavours) are, the more quality SE is required to ensure their success. The level of challenge is determined by a number of factors, as outlined in Table 7 of (9). Other studies (6) (8) from different countries and cultures support these findings to some extent. They indicate that failure to achieve a balanced integration between the technical and programmatic dimensions (or the “two lines of command” in (6)) has resulted in project failures.
I would like to conclude by sharing how SE is viewed at SpaceX (a company founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology) (10) : “Premise: Systems Engineering is a discipline established to protect the enormous investment of large scale, complex system development by anticipating and solving integration problems ahead of time.”
In view of the above, what can Timeinx offer your business?
Timeinx provides all stakeholders involved in those endeavours (projects, programmes or daily operations) with the ability to gain quick, clear and high-level visibility of all aspects of their endeavours throughout their lifecycle. This allows them to track and monitor the progress of their endaevours in a way that is comparable to how a radar tracks the position and velocity of objects without needing to know their internal details. In contrast to a radar, this visibility allows the recovery of specific or internal details into specialised or dedicated repositories from information systems when necessary. Timeinx thus provides all stakeholders with a comprehensive, high-level view that fosters open communication, the valuation of contributions from all departments or domains, and genuine and trusted collaboration, which may ultimately result in timely alignments.
Thank you for taking the time to read. You can also follow our LinkedIn page.
2. Rebentisch, E., & Prusak, L. (2017). Integrating program management and systems engineering: Methods, tools, and organizational systems for improving performance. John Wiley & Sons.
3. Kasser J (2002). Systems engineering: An alternative management paradigm? Doctoral Dissertation.
4. Hossain, N. U. I., Jaradat, R. M., Hamilton, M. A., Keating, C. B., & Goerger, S. R. (2020). A historical perspective on development of systems engineering discipline: a review and analysis. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 29, 1-35.
5. Hitchins, D. K. (2008). Systems engineering: a 21st century systems methodology. John Wiley & Sons.
6. The growth of systems engineering in China, in American Association for the Advancement of Science (2016) The Rise of Systems Engineering in China (Science/AAAS, Washington, DC, 2016).
7. Eric C. Honour (2013). Systems engineering return on investment Doctoral Dissertation.
8. Vareilles, E., T. Coudert, M. Aldanondo, L. Geneste, and J.Abeille. 2015. “System Design and Project Planning: Model and Rules to Manage Their Interactions.” Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering 22(4):327–342.
9. ELM, Joseph P. et GOLDENSON, Dennis. The business case for systems engineering study: Results of the systems engineering effectiveness survey. 2012.
10. http://sewiki.ru/images/0/00/CASE2012_2-4_Muratore_presentation.pdf (Accessed 12/2023)
