Difference between pages "Business or Mission Analysis" and "Developing Individuals"

From SEBoK
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replacement - "<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019'''</center>" to "<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019'''</center>")
 
m (Text replacement - "<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.0, released 1 June 2019'''</center>" to "<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019'''</center>")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The starting point of engineering any {{Term|System-of-Interest (glossary)|system-of-interest}} (SoI) is understanding the socio-economic and technological context in which potential problems or opportunities reside. Then, the enterprise strategic goals and {{Term|Stakeholder (glossary)|stakeholder}} needs, expectations, and requirements represent the problem or the opportunity from the viewpoint of business or enterprise decision makers while also taking into account the views of {{Term|User (glossary)|users}}, {{Term|Acquirer (glossary)|acquirers}}, and {{Term|Customer (glossary)|customers}}.  
+
Developing each individual’s {{Term|Systems Engineering (glossary)|systems engineering}} (SE) {{Term|Competency (glossary)|competencies(glossary)}} is a key aspect of [[Enabling Individuals|enabling individuals]]. The goal may be to develop competency in a broad range of SE competencies or a single aspect of SE, and it is important to know exactly which SE competencies are desired.  This article describes strategies to develop SE competencies in individuals.
  
Mission Analysis (MA) is part of the larger set of {{Term|Concept Definition (glossary)}} activities - the set of systems engineering activities in which the problem space and the needs of the business or enterprise and stakeholders are closely examined. This occurs before any formal definition of the (SoI) is developed but may need to be revisited through the life cycle. In fact, the activities of Concept Definition determine whether the enterprise strategic goals and business needs will be addressed by a new system, a change to an existing system, a service, an operational change or some other solution. The MA activity focuses on the identification of the primary purpose(s) of the solution (its "mission"), while [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activity explores what capabilities stakeholders desire in accomplishing the mission and may include some detail on the performance of certain aspects of the solution. MA is often performed iteratively with the [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activity to better understand the problem (or opportunity) space, as well as the solution space.
+
==Closing Competency Gaps==
 +
Delivering excellent systems that fulfill customer needs is the primary goal of the organization. Developing ''the capability'' to deliver such systems is a secondary goal, and while necessary, is not sufficient. To attain both of these goals, the organization must assess itself and effect a strategy to identify and close competency gaps.
  
== Purpose and Definition ==
+
To identify competency gaps, an organization may take two basic steps:
The purpose of MA is to understand a mission/market problem or opportunity, analyze the solution space, and initiate the life cycle of a potential solution that could address the problem or take advantage of an opportunity. MA is a type of strategic or operations analysis related to needs, capability gaps, or opportunities and solutions that can be applied to any organization that evolves its strategy for its business objectives.
+
#Listing desired competencies, as discussed in [[Roles and Competencies]]; and
 +
#Assessing the competencies of individual systems engineers, as discussed in [[Assessing Individuals]].
  
MA, in some domains called {{Term|Market Analysis (glossary)|market analysis}} or business analysis, is the identification, characterization, and assessment of an operational problem or opportunity within an enterprise. The definition of a mission or business function in a problem space frames the solution, both in terms of the direct application to the mission or business function, and in terms of the context for the resulting solution.  
+
Models useful for listing competencies include the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) United Kingdom Advisory Board model (Cowper et al. 2005; INCOSE 2010), the ENG Competency Model (DAU 2013), and the Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL 2009) model (Menrad and Lawson 2008).
  
MA is used to define needed (or desired) operational actions, not hardware/software functions; that is, it is focused on defining the problem space, not the solution space. MA begins with the business vision and Concept of Operations (ConOps) (IEEE. 1998), and other organization strategic goals and objectives including the mission (or business function). The primary products of MA are Business or Mission Needs, which are supported by preliminary life-cycle concepts—including a preliminary acquisition concept, a preliminary operational concept (OpsCon), a preliminary deployment concept, a preliminary support concept, and a preliminary retirement concept. Business or Mission Needs are then elaborated and formalized into Business or Mission Requirements.  The preliminary operational concept includes the operational scenarios for the mission and the context in which the solution will exist.
+
Once the organization knows the SE competencies it needs to develop to close the competency gaps it has identified, it may choose from the several methods (Davidz and Martin 2011) outlined in the table below.  
  
MA may include mathematical analysis, modeling, simulation, visualization, and other analytical tools to characterize the intended mission and determine how to best achieve the needs/objectives. MA evaluates alternative approaches to determine which best supports the stakeholder needs (among both materiel and non-materiel solution alternatives, also known as product solutions and service/operational solutions). Thus, MA defines the problem space and analyzes the solution space alternatives using quality attribute constraints driven by the enterprise objectives.
+
<center>'''Table 1. SE Competency Development Framework.''' (SEBoK Original)</center>
 +
<center>
 +
<table border="1"><tr>
 +
 
 +
<tr><td><b>Goal</b></td>
 +
<td><b>Objective</b></td>
 +
<td><b>Method</b></td></tr>
 +
 
 +
<td rowspan="2" width="25%"><b><center>PRIMARY GOAL = Delivery of excellent systems to fulfill customer needs</center></b></td>
 +
 
 +
<td>Focus on successful performance outcome</td>
 +
<td>Corporate intiatives</td>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>Focus on performance of project team</td>
 +
<td>Team coaching of project team for performance enhancement</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
 
 +
<tr>
 +
<td rowspan="19" width="25%"><b><center>SECONDARY GOAL = Competency to deliver excellent systems to fulfill customer needs</center></b></td>
 +
 
 +
<td rowspan="9">Develop individual competency</td>
 +
<td>Training courses</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Job rotation</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Mentoring</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Hands-on experience</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Develop a few hand-picked individuals</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>University educational degree program</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Customized educational program</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Combination program - education, training, job rotation, mentoring, hands-on experience</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Course certificate program</td>
 +
 
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Ensure individual competency through certification</td>
 +
<td>Certification program</td></tr>
 +
 
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>Filter those working in systems roles</td>
 +
<td>Use individual characteristics to select employees for systems roles</td></tr>
 +
 
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>Ensure organizational competency through certification</td>
 +
<td>ISO 9000</td></tr>
 +
 
 +
<tr><td rowspan="7">Develop organizational systems competency through processes</td>
  
==Principles and Concepts==
+
<td>Process improvement using an established framework</td>
===Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations===
+
</tr><tr>
MA and the terms ConOps and OpsCon are broadly used in U.S. and UK defense and aerospace organizations to analyze and define how a system is intended to operate, as well as how the major operations or operational scenarios are intended to be performed. They take into account the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the identified scenarios. ANSI/AIAA G-043A-2012 (ANSI 2012) identifies that the terms ‘concept of operations’ and ‘operational concept’ are often used interchangeably but notes that an important distinction exists because each has a separate purpose and is used to meet different ends. The ConOps is at an organizational level, prepared by enterprise management and refined by business management:
+
<td>Concept maps to identify the thought processes of senior systems engineers</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Standarize systems policies and procedures for consistency</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Systems engineering web portal</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Systems knowledge management repository</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>On-call organizational experts</td>
 +
</tr><tr>
 +
<td>Rotating professor who works at company part-time and is at university part-time</td>
  
<blockquote>''The ConOps, at the organization level, addresses the leadership's intended way of operating the organization. It may refer to the use of one or more systems (as black boxes) to forward the organization's goals and objectives. The ConOps document describes the organization's assumptions or intent in regard to an overall operation or series of operations within the business in regards to the system to be developed, existing systems, and possible future systems. This document is frequently embodied in long-range strategic plans and annual operational plans. The ConOps document serves as a basis for the organization to direct the overall characteristics of future business and systems.'' (ISO/IEC 2011) </blockquote>  
+
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
</center>
  
The ConOps informs the OpsCon, which is drafted by business management in the Mission Analysis activity and refined by stakeholders in the [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activity:
+
===System Delivery===
  
<blockquote>''A system OpsCon document describes what the system will do (not how it will do it) and why (rationale). An OpsCon is a user-oriented document that describes system characteristics of the to-be-delivered system from the user's viewpoint. The OpsCon document is used to communicate overall quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to the acquirer, user, supplier and other organizational elements.'' (ISO/IEC 2011) </blockquote>
+
Some organizations mount initiatives which focus directly on successful system delivery. Others focus on project team performance, in some cases by offering coaching, as a means to ensure successful system delivery.
  
It should be noted that the OpsCon has an operational focus and should be supported by the development of other concepts, including a deployment concept, a support concept, and a retirement concept.  
+
One example of the latter approach is the performance enhancement service of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL), which assesses team performance and then offers developmental interventions with coaching (NASA 2010).
  
In order to determine appropriate technical solutions for evolving enterprise capabilities, systems engineering (SE) leaders interact with enterprise leaders and operations analysts to understand:
+
Organizations pursue multiple paths towards developing the capability to deliver excellent systems, including
*the enterprise ConOps and future mission, business, and operational (MBO) objectives;  
+
*developing the competency of individuals;
*the characterization of the operational concept and objectives (i.e., constraints, mission or operational scenarios, tasks, resources, risks, assumptions, and related missions or operations); and
+
*developing the competency of the organization through processes (Davidz and Maier 2007); and
*how specific missions or operations are currently conducted and what gaps exist in those areas.
+
*putting measures should in place to verify the efficacy of the selected methods.
  
They then conceptually explore and select from alternative candidate solutions. This interaction ensures a full understanding of both the problem space and the solution space. The alternative candidate solutions can include a wide range of approaches to address the need, as well as variants for an approach to optimize specific characteristics (e.g., using a different distribution of satellite orbit parameters to maximize coverage or events while minimizing the number of satellites). Analysis, modeling and simulation, and trade studies are employed to select alternative approaches (NDIA 2010).
+
===Individual Competency===
  
The notions of mission analysis, ConOps and OpsCon are also used in industrial sectors, such as aviation administrations and aeronautic transportation, health care systems, and space with adapted definitions and/or terms, such as operational concepts, usage concepts and/or technological concepts. For example, “mission analysis” is the term used to describe the mathematical analysis of satellite orbits performed to determine how best to achieve the objectives of a space mission (ESA 2008).
+
An organization may choose a combination of methods to develop individual systems competency. General Electric’s Edison Engineering Development Program (GE 2010) and Lockheed Martin’s Leadership Development Programs (Lockheed Martin 2010) are examples among the many combination programs offered within companies.
  
In commercial sectors, MA is often primarily performed as market analysis. Wikipedia defines market analysis as a process that:
+
Whether or not the program is specifically oriented to develop systems skills, the breadth of technical training and experience, coupled with business training, can produce a rich understanding of systems for the participant. Furthermore, new combination programs can be designed to develop specific systems-oriented skills for an organization.
  
<blockquote>''. . . studies the attractiveness and the dynamics of a special market within a special industry. It is part of the industry analysis and this in turn of the global environmental analysis. Through all these analyses, the chances, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of a company can be identified. Finally, with the help of a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, adequate business strategies of a company will be defined. The market analysis is also known as a documented investigation of a market that is used to inform a firm's planning activities, particularly around decisions of inventory, purchase, work force expansion/contraction, facility expansion, purchases of capital equipment, promotional activities, and many other aspects of a company.'' (Wikipedia Contributors, 2012)</blockquote>
+
Methods for developing individual competency include
  
Anywhere these notions are used, it is evident that they are based on fundamental concepts, such as the {{Term|Operational Mode (glossary)|operational mode}} (or state of the system), {{Term|Scenario (glossary)|scenario}} (of actions), the enterprise level ConOps and the system level operational concepts, {{Term|Function (glossary)|functions}}, etc. For more explanations about the ConOps and operational concept, refer to ''Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering'' (ISO/IEC 2011); useful information can be found in Annex A, "System Operational Concept," and Annex B, "Concept of Operations" (ISO/IEC 2011).
+
*'''classroom or online training courses''', a traditional choice for knowledge transfer and skill acquisition. Here, an instructor directs a classroom of participants. The method of instruction may vary from a lecture format to case study work to hands-on exercises.  The impact and effectiveness of this method varies considerably based on the skill of the instructor, the effort of the participants, the presentation of the material, the course content, the quality of the course design process, and the matching of the course material to organizational needs.  These types of interventions may also be given online. Squires (2011) investigates the relationship between online pedagogy and student perceived learning of SE competencies.
 +
*'''job rotation''', where a participant rotates through a series of work assignments that cut across different aspects of the organization to gain broad experience in a relatively short time.
 +
*'''mentoring''', where a more experienced individual is paired with a protégé in a developmental relationship. Many organizations use mentoring, whose impact and effectiveness vary considerably. Success factors are the tenable pairing of individuals, and the provision of adequate time for mentoring.
 +
*'''hands-on experience''', where organizations provide for their engineers to get hands-on experience that they would otherwise lack.  A research study by Davidz on enablers and barriers to the development of systems thinking showed that systems thinking is developed primarily by experiential learning (Davidz 2006; Davidz and Nightingale 2008, 1-14). As an example, some individuals found that working in a job that dealt with the full system, such as working in an integration and test environment, enabled development of systems thinking.
 +
*'''selecting individuals''' who appear to have high potential and focusing on their development. Hand-selection may or may not be accompanied by the other identified methods.
 +
*'''formal education''', such as a university degree program. A growing number of SE degree programs are offered worldwide (Lasfer and Pyster 2011). Companies have also worked with local universities to set up customized educational programs for their employees.  The company benefits because it can tailor the educational program to the unique needs of its business. In a certificate program, individuals receive a certificate for taking a specific set of courses, either at a university or as provided by the company. There are a growing number of certificate programs for developing systems competency.
  
===Mission Analysis as Part of Enterprise Strategy Development===
+
====Individual Certification====
Periodically, most enterprises re-evaluate their strategy with respect to their mission, vision, and positioning to accomplish their goals. Figure 1 shows the interactions of the enterprise strategy development and the concept definition, including the MA and [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements]] activities that are involved in an iterative manner to fully develop the strategy and define future capabilities and solutions.
 
  
[[File:Enterprise_Strategy_and_Concept_Development.PNG|thumb|700px|center|'''Figure 1. Enterprise Strategy and Concept Development (Roedler 2012).''' Used with permission of Garry Roedler. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.]]
+
Organizations may seek to boost individual systems competency through certification programs. These can combine work experience, educational background, and training classes. Certifications are offered by local, national, and international professional bodies.  
  
As the enterprise evolves the strategy, it is essential to conduct the supporting MA or strategic analysis for each element of the enterprise to determine readiness to achieve future objectives. This analysis examines the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement and aids the enterprise in fully understanding and defining the problem space. The analysis examines the external environment and interfaces in search of impacts and trends, as well as the internal enterprise to gauge its capabilities and value stream gaps. Additionally, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis may be performed. As the problem space is defined, the stakeholder needs are defined and transformed into stakeholder requirements that define the solutions needed. These requirements include those that address customer and mission needs, the future state of core processes and capabilities of the enterprise, and the enablers to support performance of those processes and capabilities. Finally, MA is engaged again to examine the solution space. Candidate solutions that span the potential solution space are identified, from simple operational changes to various system developments or modifications. Various techniques are applied to analyze the candidates, understand their feasibility and value, and select the best alternative.
+
SE organizations may encourage employees to seek certification from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE 2011) or may use this type of certification as a filter (see '''Filters''', below). In addition, many companies have developed their own internal certification measures. For example, the Aerospace Corporation has an Aerospace Systems Architecting and Engineering Certificate Program (ASAECP). (Gardner 2007)
  
==Process Approach==
+
====Filters====
===Activities of the Process===
 
It is necessary to perform the following major activities and tasks during the MA process:
 
#Review and understand the enterprise mission, vision, and ConOps.
 
#Identify and define any gaps and opportunities related to future evolution of the strategy:
 
##Examine the current state to identify any problems or opportunities related to the objective achievement, including any deficiencies of the existing system.
 
##Analyze the context of the actual political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal (PESTAL) factors, while studying sensitive factors such as cost and effectiveness, security and safety improvement, performance improvement or lack of existing systems, market opportunities, regulation changes, users' dissatisfaction, etc. External, internal, and SWOT analysis should be included as well. For the technological considerations, an appropriate {{Term|Architecture Framework (glossary)|architecture framework}} representation, such as the U.S. Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) operations view (DoD 2010), the Zachman Framework (Rows 1 and 2) (Zachman 2008), and The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Architecture Development Method (ADM) (The Open Group 2010) Phases A and B should be included within the concept definition when performing mission analysis and stakeholders needs and requirements.
 
##Define the mission, business, and/or operational problem or opportunity, as well as its context, and any key parameters, without focusing on a solution.
 
#Examine and evaluate the solution space:
 
##Identify the main stakeholders (customers, users, administrations, regulations, etc.).
 
##Identify high level operational modes or states, or potential use cases.
 
##Identify candidate solutions that span the potential solution space, from simple operational changes to various system developments or modifications. 
 
##Identify existing systems, products, and services that may address the need for operational or functional modifications.
 
##Deduce what potential expected services may be needed. The SoI is a potential and not yet existing product, service or enterprise. Additionally, the solution could be an operational change or a change to an existing product or service.
 
#Perform appropriate modeling, simulation, and analytical techniques to understand the feasibility and value of the alternative candidate solutions. Model or simulate operational scenarios from these services and use cases, and enrich them through reviews with stakeholders and subject matter experts.
 
#Define basic operational concept or market strategy, and/or business models.
 
##From previous modeled operational scenarios and operational modes, deduce and express the usage of operational concepts, or technical concepts.
 
##Collect and enrich needs, expectations, scenarios, and constraints.
 
##Validate the mission of any potential SoI in the context of any proposed market strategy or business model.
 
#Evaluate the set of alternatives and select the best alternative.
 
##Perform a trade study of the alternatives to discriminate between the alternatives.
 
#Provide feedback on feasibility, market factors, and alternatives for use in completion of the enterprise strategy and further actions.
 
#Define preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept.
 
  
===Mission Analysis Artifacts===
+
Another approach to developing individual competency is to select employees for systems roles based on certain characteristics, or filters. Before using a list of characteristics for filtering, though, an organization should critically examine
 +
#how the list of individual characteristics was determined, and
 +
#how the characteristics identified enable the performance of a systems job. 
  
This process may create several artifacts, such as:
+
Characteristics used as filters should
*recommendations for revisions to the enterprise ConOps;
+
*enable one to perform a systems job
*preliminary operational concept document or inputs;
+
*be viewed as important to perform a systems job, or
*mission analysis and definition reports (perhaps with recommendations for revisions of the mission);
+
*be necessary to perform a systems job.
*a set of business needs;
 
*preliminary life-cycle concepts (preliminary operational concept, preliminary deployment concept, preliminary support concept, and preliminary retirement concept;
 
*[[System Analysis|system analysis]] artifacts (e.g., use case diagrams, context diagrams, sequence/activity diagrams, functional flow block diagrams);
 
*trade study results (alternatives analysis);
 
*market study/analysis reports; and
 
*a set of business (or mission) requirements (often captured in a business requirement specification).
 
  
===Methods and Modeling Techniques===
+
A necessary characteristic is much stronger than an enabling one, and before filtering for certain traits, it is important to understand whether the characteristic is an enabler or a necessity. 
  
MA uses several techniques, such as:
+
Finally, it is important to understand the extent to which findings are generally applicable, since a list of characteristics that determine success in one organization may not be generalizable to another organization.
+
 
*use case analysis;
+
===Organizational Capability===
*operational analysis;
+
Once an organization has determined which SE capabilities are mission critical (please see [[Deciding on Desired Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises]]), there are many different ways in which an organization can seek to develop or improve these capabilities. Some approaches seen in the literature include the following:
*functional analysis;
 
*technical documentation review;
 
*trade studies;
 
*modeling;
 
*simulation;
 
*prototyping;
 
*workshops, interviews, and questionnaires;
 
*market competitive assessments;
 
*benchmarking; and
 
*organizational analysis techniques (e.g., strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT analysis), and product portfolios).
 
  
==Practical Considerations==
+
*Organizations may choose to develop organizational systems capability through processes.  One method organizations may choose is to pursue process improvement using an established framework.  An example is the Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI) process improvement approach (SEI 2010, 1).
Major pitfalls encountered with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 1.  
+
*Concept maps - graphical representations of engineering thought processes - have been shown to be an effective method of transferring knowledge from senior engineering personnel to junior engineering personnel (Kramer 2007, 26-29; Kramer 2005).  These maps may provide a mechanism for increasing knowledge of the systems engineering population of an organization.
 +
*An organization may also choose to develop organizational systems competencies by standardizing systems policies and procedures.  An example from NASA is their ''NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirement'' (NASA 2007).
 +
*Some organizations use a web portal to store and organize applicable systems engineering knowledge and processes, which assists in developing organizational systems competency.  An example is the Mission Assurance Portal for the Aerospace Corporation (Roberts et al. 2007, 10-13).
 +
*Another approach being considered in the community is the development of a rotating professor role, where the person would work at the company and then be at a university to strengthen the link between academia and industry.
 +
*Another approach is to alter organizational design to foster and mature a desired competency.  For example, an organization that identifies competency in the area of reliability as critical to its SE success may develop a reliability group, which will help foster growth and improvement in reliability competencies.
  
<center>
+
====Organizational Certification====
{|
 
|+'''Table 1. Major Pitfalls for Mission Analysis.''' (SEBoK Original)
 
!Pitfall
 
!Description
 
|-
 
|Wrong level of system addressed
 
|When delineating the boundaries of the SoI and defining the mission and purpose of the system at the very beginning of systems engineering, a classic mistake is to place the system-of-interest at the wrong level of abstraction. The level of abstraction can be too high or too low (sitting respectively in the upper-system or in a sub-system). This is the consequence of the principle stating that a system is always included in a larger system and of confusing the purpose and the mission of the SoI.
 
|-
 
|Operational modes or scenarios missing
 
|In commercial products or systems, the lack or insufficient description of operational modes and scenarios (how the SoI will be used, in which situations, etc.) is often encountered.
 
|}
 
</center>
 
  
 +
Certification at the organizational level exists also, and can be a means for ensuring competency. ISO certification is one example (ISO 2010). Before taking this approach, the organization should verify that the capabilities required by the certification are indeed the systems capabilities it seeks. For more on determining appropriate organizational capabilities, see [[Deciding on Desired Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises]].
  
Proven practices with mission analysis and marketing analysis are presented in Table 2.
+
====Repositioning the Product Life Cycle====
  
<center>
+
An organization may also choose to reposition its product life cycle philosophy to maintain system competency. For example, NASA has done this with its APPEL program (APPEL 2009).  
{|
 
|+'''Table 2. Mission Analysis Proven Practices.''' (SEBoK Original)
 
!Practice
 
!Description
 
|-
 
|Models of operational scenarios
 
|Using modeling techniques as indicated in sections above for operational scenarios in any kind of SoI (including commercial systems).
 
|-
 
|Models of the context
 
|Consider the context of use as a system and force oneself to use modeling techniques for main aspects of the context (functional, behavioral, physical, etc.).
 
|}
 
</center>
 
  
==References==
+
Since the systems competencies of individuals are primarily developed through experiential learning, providing experiential learning opportunities is critical. Shortening the product life cycle is one way to ensure that individuals acquire the full range of desired competency sooner.
  
===Works Cited===
+
==Maintaining Competency Plans==
ANSI/AIAA G-043-2012e, Guide to the Preparation of Operational Concept Documents.
 
  
DoD. 2010. ''DoD Architecture Framework'', version 2.02. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DODAF/DoDAF_v2-02_web.pdf.
+
An organization that has developed an SE competency plan should consider how to maintain it. How, and how often, will the competency plan be re-examined and updated? The maintenance process should account for the ongoing evolution of global contexts, business strategies, and the SEBoK. The process for assessing competencies and taking action to improve them must be part of the normal operations of the organization and should occur periodically.
  
ESA. 2008. ''Mission Analysis: Towards a European Harmonization.'' Paris, France: European Space Agency. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin134/bul134b_schoenmaekers.pdf.
+
==References==
  
IEEE. 1998. ''Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document''. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.
+
===Works Cited===
 +
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. [[NASA's Systems Engineering Competencies]]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Association. Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-development/pm_se_competency_framework.html.
  
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. ''Systems and Software Engineering - Life Cycle Processes - Requirements Engineering.'' Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011.
+
Cowper, D., S. Bennison, R. Allen-Shalless, K. Barnwell, S. Brown, A. El Fatatry, J. Hooper, S. Hudson, L. Oliver, and A. Smith. 2005. ''Systems Engineering Core Competencies Framework.'' Folkestone, UK: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) UK Advisory Board (UKAB).
  
NDIA. 2010. “Mission Analysis Committee Charter”. Website of the National Defense Industrial Association, Systems Engineering Division, Mission Analysis Committee. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Committees/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee/Mission%20Analysis%20Committee%20Charter.pdf.
+
Davidz, H.L. and J. Martin. 2011. "[[Defining a Strategy for Development of Systems Capability in the Workforce]]". ''Systems Engineering''. 14(2): 141-143.  
  
The Open Group. 2011. ''TOGAF'', version 9.1. Hogeweg, The Netherlands: Van Haren Publishing. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/jsp/publications/PublicationDetails.jsp?catalogno=g116.
+
Davidz, H.L. and M.W. Maier. 2007. "[[An Integrated Approach to Developing Systems Professionals]]."  Paper presented at the 17th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 24-28 June 2007. San Diego, CA, USA.
  
Wikipedia contributors, "Market analysis," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_analysis&oldid=508583878 (accessed August 29, 2012).
+
Davidz, H.L., and D. Nightingale. 2008. "Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems Engineers." ''Systems Engineering''. 11(1): 1-14.
  
Zachman, J. 2008. "John Zachman's Concise Definition of The Zachman Framework™." Zachman International Enterprise Architecture. Accessed August 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.zachman.com/about-the-zachman-framework.
+
Davidz, H.L. 2006. ''Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems Engineers.'' Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.
  
===Primary References===
+
Gardner, B. 2007. "A Corporate Approach to National Security Space Education.''Crosslink,'' the Aerospace Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(1) (Spring 2007):10-5. Accessed April 23, 2013.  Available at: http://aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/crosslink/V8N1.pdf.
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2015. ''Systems and Software Engineering -- System Life Cycle Processes''. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation / International Electrotechnical Commissions / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288:2015.
 
  
ISO/IEC/IEEE. 2011. ''[[ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148|Systems and Software Engineering - Requirements Engineering]]''. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission/ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), (IEC), [[ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148]].
+
GE. 2010. ''Edison Engineering Development Program (EEDP) in General Electric.'' Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.gecareers.com/GECAREERS/jsp/us/studentOpportunities/leadershipPrograms/eng_program_guide.jsp.
  
INCOSE. 2015. '[[INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook|Systems Engineering Handbook]]: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities', version 4.0. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN: 978-1-118-99940-0.
+
INCOSE. 2010. ''[[Systems Engineering Competencies Framework 2010-0205]].'' San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2010-003.
 +
 +
INCOSE. 2011.  "Systems Engineering Professional Certification."  In ''International Council on Systems Engineering'' online.  Accessed April 13, 2015.  Available at:  http://www.incose.org/certification/.
  
Lamsweerde, A. van. 2009. ''[[Requirements Engineering]]: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications''. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
+
Kramer, M.J. 2007. "Can Concept Maps Bridge The Engineering Gap?" ''Crosslink'', the Aerospace Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(1) (Spring 2007): 26-9. Accessed April 23, 2013. Available at: http://aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/crosslink/V8N1.pdf.
  
===Additional References===
+
Kramer, M.J. 2005. ''Using Concept Maps for Knowledge Acquisition in Satellite Design: Translating 'Statement of Requirements on Orbit' to 'Design Requirements.'' Dissertation. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA: Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University.
Center for Quality Management. 1993. "Special Issue on Kano's Methods for Understanding Customer Defined Quality." ''Center for Quality Management Journal.'' 2(4) (Fall 1993).  
 
  
Faisandier, A. 2012.  ''Systems Opportunities and Requirements''. Belberaud, France: Sinergy'Com.
+
Lasfer, K. and A. Pyster. 2011. "The Growth of Systems Engineering Graduate Programs in the United States."  Paper presented at Conference on Systems Engineering Research, 15-16 April 2011. Los Angeles, CA, USA.
 +
   
 +
Lockheed Martin. 2010. ''Training and Leadership Development Programs for College Applicants in Lockheed Martin Corporation.'' Bethesda, MD, USA. Accessed on August 30, 2012. Available at http://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/leadership-development-program.asp.
  
Freeman, R. "Chapter 27: Achieving Strategic Aims: Moving Toward a Process Based Military Enterprise," in ''Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering.'' A.B. Badiru and M.U. Thomas (eds). Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press.
+
NASA. 2010. ''Academy of Program/Project & engineering leadership (APPEL): Project life cycle support in U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).'' Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Air and Space Administration (NASA). Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/performance/lifecycle/161.html.
  
IEEE. 1998. ''Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document''. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 1362:1998.
+
NASA. 2007. ''NASA Procedural Requirements: NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements''. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). NPR 7123.1A.
  
Hull, M.E.C., K. Jackson, A.J.J. Dick. 2010. ''Systems Engineering.'' 3rd ed. London, UK: Springer.
+
Roberts, J., B. Simpson, and S. Guarro. 2007. "A Mission Assurance Toolbox." ''Crosslink'', the Aerospace Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(2) (Fall 2007): 10-13.
  
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton. 2008. “Developing the Strategy: Vision, Value Gaps, and Analysis,” Balanced Scorecard Report. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Publishing, Jan-Feb 2008.  
+
SEI. 2007. ''Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development'', version 1.2, Measurement and Analysis Process Area. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
  
Kano, N. 1984. "Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality." ''Quality JSQC.'' 14(2) (October 1984).  
+
Squires, A. 2011. ''Investigating the Relationship between Online Pedagogy and Student Perceived Learning of Systems Engineering Competencies''. Dissertation. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
  
Kohda, T., M. Wada, and K. Inoue. 1994. "A Simple Method for Phased Mission Analysis." ''Reliability Engineering & System Safety.'' 45(3): 299-309.  
+
===Primary References===
 +
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. ''[[NASA's Systems Engineering Competencies]]''. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  Accessed on May 2, 2014. Available at http://appel.nasa.gov/career-resources/project-management-and-systems-engineering-competency-model/.
  
Marca, D. A. and C. L. McGowan. 1987. "SADT: Structured analysis and design techniques." ''Software Engineering''. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
+
DAU. 2013. ''[[ENG Competency Model]]'', 12 June 2013 version. in Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense Database Online. Accessed on September 23, 2014. Available at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=657526&lang=en-US
  
MITRE. 2011. "Concept Development.''Systems Engineering Guide.'' Accessed 9 March 2012 at [http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/concept_development/ http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/concept_development/].
+
Davidz, H.L. and J. Martin. 2011. "[[Defining a Strategy for Development of Systems Capability in the Workforce]]". ''Systems Engineering.'' 14(2): 141-143.  
  
MITRE. 2011. "Requirements Engineering." ''Systems Engineering Guide.'' Accessed 9 March 2012 at [http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/ http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/se_lifecycle_building_blocks/requirements_engineering/].
+
INCOSE. 2010. ''[[Systems Engineering Competencies Framework 2010-0205]]''. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2010-003.
  
MITRE. 2011. "Stakeholder Assessment and Management." ''Systems Engineering Guide.'' Accessed 9 March 2012 at [http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/enterprise_engineering/transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html/ http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide/enterprise_engineering/transformation_planning_org_change/stakeholder_assessment_management.html/].
+
===Additional References===
 +
None.
  
Shupp, J.K. 2003. “The Mission Analysis Discipline: Bringing focus to the fuzziness about Attaining Good Architectures.” Proceedings of INCOSE 13th International Symposium, July 2003.
 
 
----
 
----
<center>[[Concept Definition|< Previous Article]] | [[Concept Definition|Parent Article]] | [[Stakeholder Needs and Requirements|Next Article >]]</center>
+
<center>[[Assessing Individuals|< Previous Article]] | [[Enabling Individuals|Parent Article]] | [[Ethical Behavior|Next Article >]]</center>
  
[[Category: Part 3]][[Category:Topic]]
 
[[Category:Concept Definition]]
 
 
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019'''</center>
 
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019'''</center>
 +
 +
[[Category: Part 5]][[Category:Topic]]
 +
[[Category:Enabling Individuals]]

Revision as of 04:58, 19 October 2019

Developing each individual’s systems engineeringsystems engineering (SE) competencies(glossary)competencies(glossary) is a key aspect of enabling individuals. The goal may be to develop competency in a broad range of SE competencies or a single aspect of SE, and it is important to know exactly which SE competencies are desired. This article describes strategies to develop SE competencies in individuals.

Closing Competency Gaps

Delivering excellent systems that fulfill customer needs is the primary goal of the organization. Developing the capability to deliver such systems is a secondary goal, and while necessary, is not sufficient. To attain both of these goals, the organization must assess itself and effect a strategy to identify and close competency gaps.

To identify competency gaps, an organization may take two basic steps:

  1. Listing desired competencies, as discussed in Roles and Competencies; and
  2. Assessing the competencies of individual systems engineers, as discussed in Assessing Individuals.

Models useful for listing competencies include the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) United Kingdom Advisory Board model (Cowper et al. 2005; INCOSE 2010), the ENG Competency Model (DAU 2013), and the Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL 2009) model (Menrad and Lawson 2008).

Once the organization knows the SE competencies it needs to develop to close the competency gaps it has identified, it may choose from the several methods (Davidz and Martin 2011) outlined in the table below.

Table 1. SE Competency Development Framework. (SEBoK Original)
Goal Objective Method
PRIMARY GOAL = Delivery of excellent systems to fulfill customer needs
Focus on successful performance outcome Corporate intiatives
Focus on performance of project team Team coaching of project team for performance enhancement
SECONDARY GOAL = Competency to deliver excellent systems to fulfill customer needs
Develop individual competency Training courses
Job rotation
Mentoring
Hands-on experience
Develop a few hand-picked individuals
University educational degree program
Customized educational program
Combination program - education, training, job rotation, mentoring, hands-on experience
Course certificate program
Ensure individual competency through certification Certification program
Filter those working in systems roles Use individual characteristics to select employees for systems roles
Ensure organizational competency through certification ISO 9000
Develop organizational systems competency through processes Process improvement using an established framework
Concept maps to identify the thought processes of senior systems engineers
Standarize systems policies and procedures for consistency
Systems engineering web portal
Systems knowledge management repository
On-call organizational experts
Rotating professor who works at company part-time and is at university part-time

System Delivery

Some organizations mount initiatives which focus directly on successful system delivery. Others focus on project team performance, in some cases by offering coaching, as a means to ensure successful system delivery.

One example of the latter approach is the performance enhancement service of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL), which assesses team performance and then offers developmental interventions with coaching (NASA 2010).

Organizations pursue multiple paths towards developing the capability to deliver excellent systems, including

  • developing the competency of individuals;
  • developing the competency of the organization through processes (Davidz and Maier 2007); and
  • putting measures should in place to verify the efficacy of the selected methods.

Individual Competency

An organization may choose a combination of methods to develop individual systems competency. General Electric’s Edison Engineering Development Program (GE 2010) and Lockheed Martin’s Leadership Development Programs (Lockheed Martin 2010) are examples among the many combination programs offered within companies.

Whether or not the program is specifically oriented to develop systems skills, the breadth of technical training and experience, coupled with business training, can produce a rich understanding of systems for the participant. Furthermore, new combination programs can be designed to develop specific systems-oriented skills for an organization.

Methods for developing individual competency include

  • classroom or online training courses, a traditional choice for knowledge transfer and skill acquisition. Here, an instructor directs a classroom of participants. The method of instruction may vary from a lecture format to case study work to hands-on exercises. The impact and effectiveness of this method varies considerably based on the skill of the instructor, the effort of the participants, the presentation of the material, the course content, the quality of the course design process, and the matching of the course material to organizational needs. These types of interventions may also be given online. Squires (2011) investigates the relationship between online pedagogy and student perceived learning of SE competencies.
  • job rotation, where a participant rotates through a series of work assignments that cut across different aspects of the organization to gain broad experience in a relatively short time.
  • mentoring, where a more experienced individual is paired with a protégé in a developmental relationship. Many organizations use mentoring, whose impact and effectiveness vary considerably. Success factors are the tenable pairing of individuals, and the provision of adequate time for mentoring.
  • hands-on experience, where organizations provide for their engineers to get hands-on experience that they would otherwise lack. A research study by Davidz on enablers and barriers to the development of systems thinking showed that systems thinking is developed primarily by experiential learning (Davidz 2006; Davidz and Nightingale 2008, 1-14). As an example, some individuals found that working in a job that dealt with the full system, such as working in an integration and test environment, enabled development of systems thinking.
  • selecting individuals who appear to have high potential and focusing on their development. Hand-selection may or may not be accompanied by the other identified methods.
  • formal education, such as a university degree program. A growing number of SE degree programs are offered worldwide (Lasfer and Pyster 2011). Companies have also worked with local universities to set up customized educational programs for their employees. The company benefits because it can tailor the educational program to the unique needs of its business. In a certificate program, individuals receive a certificate for taking a specific set of courses, either at a university or as provided by the company. There are a growing number of certificate programs for developing systems competency.

Individual Certification

Organizations may seek to boost individual systems competency through certification programs. These can combine work experience, educational background, and training classes. Certifications are offered by local, national, and international professional bodies.

SE organizations may encourage employees to seek certification from the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE 2011) or may use this type of certification as a filter (see Filters, below). In addition, many companies have developed their own internal certification measures. For example, the Aerospace Corporation has an Aerospace Systems Architecting and Engineering Certificate Program (ASAECP). (Gardner 2007)

Filters

Another approach to developing individual competency is to select employees for systems roles based on certain characteristics, or filters. Before using a list of characteristics for filtering, though, an organization should critically examine

  1. how the list of individual characteristics was determined, and
  2. how the characteristics identified enable the performance of a systems job.

Characteristics used as filters should

  • enable one to perform a systems job
  • be viewed as important to perform a systems job, or
  • be necessary to perform a systems job.

A necessary characteristic is much stronger than an enabling one, and before filtering for certain traits, it is important to understand whether the characteristic is an enabler or a necessity.

Finally, it is important to understand the extent to which findings are generally applicable, since a list of characteristics that determine success in one organization may not be generalizable to another organization.

Organizational Capability

Once an organization has determined which SE capabilities are mission critical (please see Deciding on Desired Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises), there are many different ways in which an organization can seek to develop or improve these capabilities. Some approaches seen in the literature include the following:

  • Organizations may choose to develop organizational systems capability through processes. One method organizations may choose is to pursue process improvement using an established framework. An example is the Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI) process improvement approach (SEI 2010, 1).
  • Concept maps - graphical representations of engineering thought processes - have been shown to be an effective method of transferring knowledge from senior engineering personnel to junior engineering personnel (Kramer 2007, 26-29; Kramer 2005). These maps may provide a mechanism for increasing knowledge of the systems engineering population of an organization.
  • An organization may also choose to develop organizational systems competencies by standardizing systems policies and procedures. An example from NASA is their NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirement (NASA 2007).
  • Some organizations use a web portal to store and organize applicable systems engineering knowledge and processes, which assists in developing organizational systems competency. An example is the Mission Assurance Portal for the Aerospace Corporation (Roberts et al. 2007, 10-13).
  • Another approach being considered in the community is the development of a rotating professor role, where the person would work at the company and then be at a university to strengthen the link between academia and industry.
  • Another approach is to alter organizational design to foster and mature a desired competency. For example, an organization that identifies competency in the area of reliability as critical to its SE success may develop a reliability group, which will help foster growth and improvement in reliability competencies.

Organizational Certification

Certification at the organizational level exists also, and can be a means for ensuring competency. ISO certification is one example (ISO 2010). Before taking this approach, the organization should verify that the capabilities required by the certification are indeed the systems capabilities it seeks. For more on determining appropriate organizational capabilities, see Deciding on Desired Systems Engineering Capabilities within Businesses and Enterprises.

Repositioning the Product Life Cycle

An organization may also choose to reposition its product life cycle philosophy to maintain system competency. For example, NASA has done this with its APPEL program (APPEL 2009).

Since the systems competencies of individuals are primarily developed through experiential learning, providing experiential learning opportunities is critical. Shortening the product life cycle is one way to ensure that individuals acquire the full range of desired competency sooner.

Maintaining Competency Plans

An organization that has developed an SE competency plan should consider how to maintain it. How, and how often, will the competency plan be re-examined and updated? The maintenance process should account for the ongoing evolution of global contexts, business strategies, and the SEBoK. The process for assessing competencies and taking action to improve them must be part of the normal operations of the organization and should occur periodically.

References

Works Cited

Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. NASA's Systems Engineering Competencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Association. Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/pm-development/pm_se_competency_framework.html.

Cowper, D., S. Bennison, R. Allen-Shalless, K. Barnwell, S. Brown, A. El Fatatry, J. Hooper, S. Hudson, L. Oliver, and A. Smith. 2005. Systems Engineering Core Competencies Framework. Folkestone, UK: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) UK Advisory Board (UKAB).

Davidz, H.L. and J. Martin. 2011. "Defining a Strategy for Development of Systems Capability in the Workforce". Systems Engineering. 14(2): 141-143.

Davidz, H.L. and M.W. Maier. 2007. "An Integrated Approach to Developing Systems Professionals." Paper presented at the 17th Annual International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) International Symposium, 24-28 June 2007. San Diego, CA, USA.

Davidz, H.L., and D. Nightingale. 2008. "Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems Engineers." Systems Engineering. 11(1): 1-14.

Davidz, H.L. 2006. Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems Engineers. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA.

Gardner, B. 2007. "A Corporate Approach to National Security Space Education." Crosslink, the Aerospace Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(1) (Spring 2007):10-5. Accessed April 23, 2013. Available at: http://aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/crosslink/V8N1.pdf.

GE. 2010. Edison Engineering Development Program (EEDP) in General Electric. Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.gecareers.com/GECAREERS/jsp/us/studentOpportunities/leadershipPrograms/eng_program_guide.jsp.

INCOSE. 2010. Systems Engineering Competencies Framework 2010-0205. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2010-003.

INCOSE. 2011. "Systems Engineering Professional Certification." In International Council on Systems Engineering online. Accessed April 13, 2015. Available at: http://www.incose.org/certification/.

Kramer, M.J. 2007. "Can Concept Maps Bridge The Engineering Gap?" Crosslink, the Aerospace Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(1) (Spring 2007): 26-9. Accessed April 23, 2013. Available at: http://aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/crosslink/V8N1.pdf.

Kramer, M.J. 2005. Using Concept Maps for Knowledge Acquisition in Satellite Design: Translating 'Statement of Requirements on Orbit' to 'Design Requirements. Dissertation. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA: Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova Southeastern University.

Lasfer, K. and A. Pyster. 2011. "The Growth of Systems Engineering Graduate Programs in the United States." Paper presented at Conference on Systems Engineering Research, 15-16 April 2011. Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Lockheed Martin. 2010. Training and Leadership Development Programs for College Applicants in Lockheed Martin Corporation. Bethesda, MD, USA. Accessed on August 30, 2012. Available at http://www.lockheedmartinjobs.com/leadership-development-program.asp.

NASA. 2010. Academy of Program/Project & engineering leadership (APPEL): Project life cycle support in U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Air and Space Administration (NASA). Accessed on September 15, 2011. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/performance/lifecycle/161.html.

NASA. 2007. NASA Procedural Requirements: NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). NPR 7123.1A.

Roberts, J., B. Simpson, and S. Guarro. 2007. "A Mission Assurance Toolbox." Crosslink, the Aerospace Corporation Magazine of Advances in Aerospace Technology. 8(2) (Fall 2007): 10-13.

SEI. 2007. Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) for Development, version 1.2, Measurement and Analysis Process Area. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI)/Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).

Squires, A. 2011. Investigating the Relationship between Online Pedagogy and Student Perceived Learning of Systems Engineering Competencies. Dissertation. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Primary References

Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership (APPEL). 2009. NASA's Systems Engineering Competencies. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Accessed on May 2, 2014. Available at http://appel.nasa.gov/career-resources/project-management-and-systems-engineering-competency-model/.

DAU. 2013. ENG Competency Model, 12 June 2013 version. in Defense Acquisition University (DAU)/U.S. Department of Defense Database Online. Accessed on September 23, 2014. Available at https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=657526&lang=en-US

Davidz, H.L. and J. Martin. 2011. "Defining a Strategy for Development of Systems Capability in the Workforce". Systems Engineering. 14(2): 141-143.

INCOSE. 2010. Systems Engineering Competencies Framework 2010-0205. San Diego, CA, USA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), INCOSE-TP-2010-003.

Additional References

None.


< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >
SEBoK v. 2.1, released 31 October 2019