Helix

[Jack Ring]

Consider this excerpt from NY Times article "The World’s Coming Broadband Divide’ By QUENTIN HARDY
MAY 31, 2015 5:30 AM
"In a a report issued on Wednesday, the venture capitalist and Internet expert Mary Meeker said that 34 percent of the work force in the United States, 53 million people, now consider themselves independent contractors, short-term hires or other kinds of freelancers. Of these, she said, two-thirds believe that the Internet makes it easier for them to find work, and 41 percent have done online projects.’

Then carefully consider whether the % of [Conceptual SE vs. Mass Production SE] is changing.
The distinction is that mass production SE is accomplished by denizens of the Voluntary Adult Detention Facilities called SE Organizations in Government Contractors because few if any of the participants ever get a view of the whole system, let alone its effects on its context. Mass production SE is also called engineering of systems.

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Very interesting area for exploration.

There are a number of trends as well as a couple of application area interfaces that are becoming more important.

The first trend is the increasing capability of our physical infrastructure to generate, transport, analyze and display vast volumes of signal data.

The next trend is the ubiquitous decentralization of the means of production using the existing communications infrastructure.

Another trend is ubiquitous capability to model, analyze, intervene and impact the physical environment.

Robotics is positioning the centralized production of systems to be transitioned to non-human creation.  No man in the physical production loop.  At this time there is still a man in the system design loop.  But this may also be changing in the near future.

These future trends will have a great impact.

How we respond to the impact will be the deciding factor.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to syss...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[Jorg Largent]

Jack, you do know how to turn a phrase.  Your choice of words is always worthy of a chuckle, while being pithy.  My compliments.

 

Mightn't it be the case that the difference between "conceptual" and "mass production" systems engineering -- to use your words -- is that conceptual systems engineering can exist without being "value added?"

 

Systems engineering is of value only to the extent that it facilitates the creation of a tangible product.  As you suggest, all denizens of the VADF’s suffer the limitation of never getting a view of the “whole system.”  While one of the challenges of doing systems engineering in the black world was the said-same limitation imposed by fiat, the limitation occurs in all projects because establishing a view of the “whole system” is beyond human capability (one must acknowledge the One exception).  Therein lies the intrinsic value of the risk identification and management part of the systems engineering process.  While DARPA-inspired projects were often sallies in the unknown, fraught with risk, no project is 100% risk free.  While the systems engineering process facilitates the best possible solution, it does not guarantee against failure.

 

Therefore, I suggest that for the “53 million people [who] now consider themselves independent contractors, short-term hires or other kinds of freelancers…,” the challenge of creating a tangible product has the same need for systems engineering as does the most massive DoD/MoD project.  This is in part the basis for the Very Small Enterprise Working Group: Joe’s Lube and Grease service station and restaurant in Lubbock has as much a need for systems engineering (if not more so) as does the mission to Mars, just not on so grand a scale.

 

Might I further suggest that the piling on to define the “whole system” is counterproductive and contrary to the systems engineering process.  Consider the California High Speed Rail Project with its thousands of stake holders, each contributing to the definition of the “whole system….”

 

Jorg Largent

 

[Jack Ring]

Jorg, Glad you enjoyed the post. Apologies for any ambiguities.

My take on Helix to date is that it is more concerned with employees of SE organizations than with performers on projects whereas IMO SE gets done only on projects. However, Helix is still evolving so may get beyond the ‘government contractor’ syndrome.

Regardless, if SE is 'of value only to the extent that it facilitates the creation of a tangible product’ then the issue becomes ‘what means facilitate?’ 

One view has been offered by INCOSE Pioneer John N. Warfield with his Situation Complexity Index as described in Understanding Complexity; Thought and Behavior, 2002 in which SE reduces the SCI of the problematique to a level consistent with the competencies of those who will perform the engineering and activation of the system. Others in INCOSEd have attempted to answer “How much of what kind of SE is enough?” but not convincingly. A few of us claim that the answer must be couched in the Results and Artifacts produced by the system engineering activity. However, the majority in INCOSE still seem to believe that the answer can be expressed as processes to be conducted, c.f., ISI 15288 and friends.

Interestingly, my 20 years in the black world demonstrated that the strictures against revealing details caused us to discuss the essence of the situations and the benefits of moderating such essences. We were saved from staring at ‘components and interactions.’

The recent work by the new Conceptual Design WG, particularly as described in the 12/14 INSIGHT, emphasized the preference for describing Results rather than processes. The contrasting metaphor 'mass production SE’ is intended to highlight the issue, "Does One Size Fit All?” else each project deserves a unique SE activity. Mass production SE implements process templates regardless of whether the resulting system is Fit For Purpose.

Accordingly, INCOSE would be well advised to consider what happens in a system project regardless of what happens in an SE organization. And how can we formulate the best project for the problematic situation? And what competencies are salient to such formulation.

And be careful of claiming that a very small enterprise has the same need for SE as does a mission to Mars. Unless you have a version of SE that fits all then those who can play Chopsticks on a piano will not do well when attempting a Chopin Sonata. 

IMO understanding the whole system is quite feasible. Having pretty well understood the 20+ cabinets of electronics that comprised the Atlas Missile Radio Guidance System I was able to diagnose situations that confused the designers of the respective cabinets. IMO this highlights the importance of Requisite Saliency as well as Requisite Variety.

Cheers,

Jack

On Jun 6, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Jorg Largent <largen...@msn.com> wrot

[Hillary Sillitto]

Jack

I really, really like the proposition you attribute to Warfield: that "SE (should) reduce(s) the SCI of the problematique to a level consistent with the competencies of those who will perform the engineering and activation of the system." This is consistent with conversations I have had in the black world on this side of the pond. Also consistent with my belief that architecture (should) ensure(s) fitness for purpose and avoid(s) unintended consequences rather than merely generate dozens of 'architectural views'.

Cheers

Hillary

[Jack Ring]

Hillary, Thanks for the comments. Could you say more about a system that will Do No Harm? IMO this is a key topic, particularly for a system that does or is supposed to do system engineering. What if a system does not learn to generate increased worth of its outputs as it experiences its context (as in Systems of the Third Kind, INCOSE INSIGhT, July 2012)

Jack