Advertisement

The Practice of Systems Engineering: A Foundation for Technical Leadership

  • Wanda Austin
  • Marilee Wheaton
  • Charles Tang
  • Mark Goodman

Abstract

Large-scale engineering projects are often in the news, especially when they fail to realize the value promised. Often these failures result in multibillion-dollar cost overruns, and usually “complexity” is blamed for the failure. But even if complexity is the proximate cause, the underlying cause is probably a failure to establish truly beneficial projects initially, and to address risk as the project proceeds. These problems arise from a complex blend of technological and sociological factors that are often apparent to people involved in establishing and executing projects, and yet a principal method for dealing with them receives very little attention. What is offered here is a perspective on why “technical leadership” is so critical to the success of complex engineering projects, and how the practice of effective systems engineering enhances and enables such leadership.

Keywords

Global Position System System Engineering System Engineer Life Cycle Cost Global Position System Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ballhaus, W. F. “Success and Challenges in Transforming National Security Space.” AIAA-2005-2. 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 10–13, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institutes of Medicine. Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing And Employing America For A Brighter Economic Future. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Engineers’ Council for Professional Development. Canons of Ethics for Engineers. 1947.Google Scholar
  4. Ethics Resource Center, National Business Ethics Survey, 2007, ISBN 978-0-916152-11-6.Google Scholar
  5. Greer, D. R., Black, L. J., Ph.D., and Adams, R. J., Identifying and Mitigating Risk Across Organizational Boundaries in Software-Intensive Space System Programs. Space Systems Engineering and Risk Management Conference, 2005. (http://www.aero.org/conferences/riskmgmt/2005bestpaper.html).
  6. Guarro, S. (2007) “The Mission Assurance Guide: System Validation and Verification to Achieve Mission Success.” Crosslink Magazine Fall, 8(2), pp. 14–19.Google Scholar
  7. Guarro, S., and Vesely, W. “Space Modeling and Simulation,  Chapter 10: Risk Modeling”. AIAA and The Aerospace Press, 2004.
  8. Houston, D., Buettner,, D., and Hecht, M. (2009), Dynamic COQUALMO: Defect Profiling over Development Cycles. Vancouver, Canada: International Conference on Software Process, May 16–17.Google Scholar
  9. Houston, D. X., Mackulak, G. T., and Collofello, J. S. (2001), Stochastic Simulation of Risk Factor Potential Effects for Software Development Risk Management. Journal of Systems and Software 59, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. INCOSE Systems Engineering Vision 2020, INCOSE-TP-2004-004-02, September 2007.Google Scholar
  11. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). Systems Engineering Handbook. July 2000.Google Scholar
  12. Joint Task Force of the Defense Science Board and the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Report on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. May 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Kalawsky, R. S., Establishing a System Engineering Academic Research Agenda, Proceedings CSER 2008, April 4–5, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  14. Maier, M. W., and Rechtin, E. The Art of Systems Architecting (Systems Engineering Series). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  15. McManus, H. L. Product Development Value Stream Mapping Manual. Version 1.0. Lean Aerospace Initiative, Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Sept. 2005Google Scholar
  16. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook. Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. “Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident.” Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Vol. 1, Ch. 5.Google Scholar
  18. Rechtin, E. System Architecting: Creating and Building Complex Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. Rechtin, E. Systems Architecting of Organizations: Why Eagles Can’t Swim. New York: CRC Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, P. L., Dawdy, A. B., Trafton, T. W., Novak, R. G., and Presley, S. P. (2001) “Concurrent Design at Aerospace” Crosslink Magazine, Winter 2(1), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
  21. United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees. Defense Acquisitions: Stronger Management Practices Are Needed to Improve DOD’s Software-Intensive Weapon Acquisitions. (GAO-04-393), March, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees. Defense Acquisitions: 2009 Is a Critical Juncture for the Army’s Future Combat System (GAO-08-408), March 2008.Google Scholar
  23. United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees. Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs (GAO-09-326SP), March 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wanda Austin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marilee Wheaton
    • 3
  • Charles Tang
    • 2
  • Mark Goodman
    • 4
  1. 1.The Aerospace CorporationLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.The Aerospace Corporation, and Adjunct FacultyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Systems Engineering Division, The Aerospace Corporation, and Adjunct FacultyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Strategic Planning, The Aerospace CorporationLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations