All Comments

Fig2: too much information + dark background not easy for impaired eyes

Fig3: too cluttered

We're Systems Engineers, not savages.

We're Systems Engineers, not savages.

I tried to make an account to fix it, but according to your FAQ I can't.

a) you say the needs of those that acquire and use the system need to be satisfied. but there are other stakeholders - regulators (who do not acquire and use) and the business producing the system have needs that impact the solution

b) figure 1 shows a single customer - and whilst that is the only one the system is "provided to" there are significantly more stakeholders who provide needs and who need to be considered. Not including them devalues a very important, useful and informative figure.

This is the new website contains many of the DASD(SE) guidance post-reorganization..

Listed under Independent Technical Risk Assessments.

Usually I am fighting for competencies to be recognised as well as processes - not adding the process

Should it be: a) " ... engineered (system contexts)"; or b) " ... (engineered system) contexts"?

I'm guessing the latter, in which case it'd be more readable if the definition e.g. said: "A set of principles for applying systems thinking to the context of an engineered system.". Alternatively, if the aspects of multiple systems is important: A set of principles for applying systems thinking to the contexts of engineered systems."

Considering that in SE we should be advocates for writing unambiguous requirements, I find the ambiguity here a little ironic ;-)

When reading this page's title, "Enabling systems engineering", it's difficult for me to know if it means "Enabling (systems engineering)" or "(Enabling systems) engineering".

If it's the latter, readability would improve if the title instead was e.g. 'Engineering of enabling systems". If it's the former, perhaps use a synonym to 'enabling'.

Note: I've now seen this kind of combination/stacking of words at multiple places in this wiki. And even though I'm used to technical documents, here I find that it relatively often makes it more difficult for me to correctly parse the language. It certainly slows me down, and I suspect it also causes me to unintentionally group the nouns incorrectly at times when skimming text.

Alternatively, if the definition is delegate to a section in the Emergence article, it should say so more clearly (and perhaps link to the relevant section) in the Emergence article.

Finally, the Emergence article says the following:

Emergent properties can be defined as follows: “A property of a complex system is said to be ‘emergent’ [in the case when], although it arises out of the properties and relations characterizing its simpler constituents, it is neither predictable from, nor reducible to, these lower-level characteristics” (Honderich 1995, 224).

I'm not sure why this is not shown on this page, rather than being (perhaps) indirectly referenced via the Emergence article. To me this latter definition is not quite the same as the one by Checkland.

Perhaps the text in the introduction on this page should be modified to e.g. " ... It will discuss how these ideas relate to the general definitions of systems given in Introduction_to_System_Fundamentals; ...".

I suspect it'd be even better if the link actually referred to a section within that page, perhaps the section "A general view of systems". Or perhaps a section actually called "What is a system".

As an aside, I'd say this is an example of a weakness in the traceability/maintainability of this wiki system. E.g. if the introduction page expands further, or if it were to be split up in the future. FYI, I think that in other wikis it's possible to link to a section. IIRC, I also think it's possible for the referenced section to have a visual indicator (anchor) in the referenced section indicating it's being referenced, and that it allows you to list the pages that reference the section. I don't know if this wiki engine supports this, but it might be very useful for this particular wiki.

Note: I don't know how to create an account (I'm likely not allowed), so it's perhaps not so likely I'll see any responses to this. If it is allowed to create an account, please note it's not clear how that would be done.

Just thought I should share this aspect.