Existing Academic Activity in Support of Systems Engineering

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

2. Education – What is it? 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 You can observe a lot by watching.- Yogi Berra Education is that which remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school.- Albert Einstein

3. 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. designs and operates Soc Standards Suppliers Academic . in situ Prof On-going SE Non- SE work produces enters may operate System Project creates staffs funds Employer Sponsor Candidate SE Education Environment SEP Value Adder Value Value Carrier Realizer Define Problem after Ring & Wymore Concept of Operations for SE Practitioners (SEPs) - 1

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

6. 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. Bob McCaig Ability to define and solve problems Ability to communicate Ability to learn on one’s 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 one’s 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 Employer Wants Practitioner Reports Present in 2+ lists

8. 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 INCOSE Reported Surveys

9. Employer Wants 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

10. Summary of What Employers Want • Ability to define and solve problems • Ability to do trade studies • Ability to communicate • Ability to learn on one’s own

11. 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. 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. Current Situation 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.

14. Current Situation Characterization of 34 U.S. Programs Are the right courses being taught?

15. Current Situation Further Characterization SE Design & Mgmt SE Design & Mgmt + OR Methods Manufac’g & SE + Man’g Math Avg = 3.1

16. 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. 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 Teaching Methods

18. Teaching Systems Thinkingto College Freshman & IT Minors • First year’s 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. 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. % 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 % of distance on long course Best: 100%; Worst: 0% Score: percent traveled [ 0 100 ] Note: same as for part 1. 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 Design Project

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

22. 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%) Summary of Results

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

24. 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 Testing Methods

25. 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. 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. Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. William Butler Yeats

28. 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 one’s 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. 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 21st 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.