Talk:Systems engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1: 2001 - 2006
2: 2007 -


Contents

[edit] A first sentence doesn't have to be referenced

I just removed a cite needed-template from the following first sentence.

The template was placed with the argument: cite needed -Not supported by the given INCOSE ref - another is needed. Now this is not needed. In Wikipedia articles the first sentence gives an overview of the field. In most cases this is an synthesis by the authors of the article and not something, taken from an other document.

The thing is: If you think the first sentence is wrong, you just have to change it. - Mdd 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is not exempt from the requirement for verifiability. The first sentence is an assertion of fact, and as such should be verifiable. The lead sentence does not need to be "taken from an other document", but it, like the rest of the article, does need to be supported by sources. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence should quote, that: systems engineering is a field (or branch) of engineering, or an engineering discipline. Because that is a good introduction, and that is custom in the wikipedia. It's also custum to say things in your own words. - Mdd 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying things "in your own words" does not preclude the need for sources for the facts that you are asserting in those words. Generally, WP practice is to provide sources for any assertions of fact that might be challenged (see WP:V). The previous lead did contain several assertions that are subject to challenge (for example the inclusion of management practices in SE). The present lead seems less likely to be challenged (although I've seen some respected systems engineers state outright that SE is not (despite the name) a field of engineering at all), so may be able to get by without a a citation of some sort. Although IMO it wouldn't hurt to have one - the better referenced an article, the less likely it is to get filled with editor's personal opinions on a topic. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are putting to much believe, fate and trust in sources.

Have you read WP:V? Verifiability based on (reliable) sources doesn't have anything to do with what I do or do not believe or put my faith in. Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Brief History of Systems Engineering from the INCOSE, for example look to me today again like swiss cheese. There are two (maybe three (or more)) basic things about the data we put in articles:

  1. It has to represent reality
  2. It has to fit the sources.
  3. It has to fit the authors own believe.
  4. ... and it has to communicate with the audience

I'm especialy concerned with the first and third basics.

I don't put a lot of fate in sources, because they are often not just objective. Like the incose definition of SE. I believe that definition is for a specific audience. That definition is coulored by the own goals of the Incose and maybe also the NASA. The wikipedia is written for an other audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdd (talk • contribs)

I agree that many sources are not objective. I'm not particularly thrilled with some of the things that INCOSE has to say about SE. But the fact remains that they are an SE professional society, and that what they write about SE is citable. How they are cited is the key issues. Citing INCOSE's (or someone else's) opinions as fact is the worng way to go about things. Saying something like "According to INCOSE, ..." is better, since it is a (verifiable) fact that INCOSE has espoused some opinion about SE. Claiming a lack of objectivity on the part of the available sources is not a valid rationale for simply inserting your own (subjective) opinions about a subject. Wikipedia expressly bans previously unpublished ideas, and requires sources. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What INCOSE writes about SE is citable... in Wikipedia??

Only one look at WP:SOURCES clears that up:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...

INCOSE is a society for the promotion of SE. No matter how much I support that, INCOSE is far from a independent third party source. It may be reliable what they say, it better be, but their truth is motivated by their own goals. This is becoming more clear to me. I have worked on more then 100 related articles the past months and in no article any society is that present as here. The fact that one third of the SE history here is about INCOSE, is just as questionable. We should do something about it...!? - Mdd 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. As you yourself have said many times: "if you don't like it, feel free to rewrite it".
That said, what INCOSE says about SE is citable, so long it's made clear that what is being written is the opinion of INCOSE rather than an undisputed fact. Much as I disagree with some of the things that INCOSE has to say about SE, the fact remains that they are an SE society, and their views are relevant to this article.--Allan McInnes (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As a start I began writing about SE, in case you didn't notice:

In time I want to start rewriting parts of this article, but I'm still investigating SE as I also express in next talk items. - Mdd 12:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

      • All of this is somewhat confusing to the older generation and the original "Systems Engineers". As I remember my father describing the issue, it was a result of some pretty badly managed WWII programs. The original management philosophy was to have a chief engineer know all that was going on and direct all of engineering. However, with the more complex systems, this was not possible. The Army Air Corps, then becomming the Air Force, started a management class out at the Ft. Belvoir air warfare college for a "Systems" approach to engineering management. They produced a blue(?) book i think called A Systems Engineering Management Guide. So, Systems Engineering is a mis-nomer, or really a mis-inference. Systems Engineering really implies someone knowledgeable in the engineering management of the product development process. Alot of what we are seeing as CMMI today had been identified and documented as the typical SEMG processes years ago. Anyway. This is the stuff you won't see in any books because that was the generation that got it. My 2 cents. All flames rejected. [JDS] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The request for more references

I question the need for more references in the article. For example:

  • The important concept of Systems Engineering, that of perceiving whole as against parts, goes back at least to Aristotle.[2], and was probably applied to every complex system that was ever built.[citation needed]

A citation needed has been placed by the sentence "... was probably applied to every complex system that was ever built." This sentence to me is an attempt from the author to bridge the time between now and then. I beleive such a remarks don't have to be referenced. Such sentences a ment to make the article more attractive.

It may make the article "more attractive", but it's unverifiable speculation. And I don't just mean unverifiable in the Wikipedia sense, but also that it simply can't be verified at all, since we have no way of knowing if the designers of every complex system actually applied the principle or not. Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide factual information, not speculation. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also thing that it is only the superspecialist, who requires such a reference. And those persons need to know wenn to stop. For example... I can question the reference that Allan McInnes at the first sentence linking to the Artisotle aricle. I can question if Aristotle brought forward:

  • the concept of that perceiving whole as against parts

I don't even understand what this sentence means. I should have referenced it. Now I know that it probably refers to the renmark:

  • the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts

But as a superspecialist I can also put a citation needed sign on every place this is mentioned in the Wikipedia. It is not referenced in the article about Aristotles quotes. I've examened Aristotles complete work yesterday looking for it but couldn't also find it. So the question rises, did he realy say so? Is it a fact? Does it fit the sources? Shouldn't we tag it?... I beleive that tagging "references needed" should all stay within reason. And at the moment that isn't the fact.

If it's unverifiable, then it should be removed. Note that I didn't add the quote or the reference in question, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that I did. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I said it before. An alternative for tagging is changing the statement to something acceptable. The first is sometimes to easy, the second is the real challenge. - Mdd 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of tagging is to give the original author of a questionable statement a chance to address the lack of references. In the case of the "probably applied to..." phrase you mentioned above, I thought it was good phrasing, and was willing to keep it (or at least a modified version) if a reasonable citation could be found (i.e. something in which a notable person makes that claim, such that the sentence could be changed to read "...and Some Person has speculated that it has probably been applied to...". --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The particular sentence now deleted was:
  • The important concept of Systems Engineering, that of perceiving whole as against parts, goes back at least to Aristotle, and was probably applied to every complex system that was ever built...
I think the whole sentence wasn't that good. - Mdd 07:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of systems engineering books

A List of systems engineering books is being developed to get an overview of the more important books written on systems engineering, and it's historical development. If you have any information or other notable lists, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? - Mdd 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you can accept IEEE Std 1220 as a "book." BTW and FWIW, I share you hesitations re. INCOSE. I'm not sure where INCOSE's center of gravity is, but in my opinion it's definitely not in the engineering part of "systems engineering." As such, they do more harm than good. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. If you don't mind, I will answer you in two different places:

  • The question about IEEE Std 1220 have I answered in talkpage of this list, see here
  • I start here a new talk item about INCOSE's center of gravity.

- Mdd 11:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of systems engineering at universities

A List of systems engineering at universities is beeing developed to get a better impression of the State of the Art in SE education. If you have any information, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? -Mdd 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note of caution. A "list of systems engineering at universities" may have elements that cause confusion. For instance, I have seen universities claim courses, say Communications Systems Engineering, under the heading of Systems Engineering where the actual course addresses the engineering of communications artifacts without ever getting into the discipline of systems engineering proper. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will answer this at the Talk page of the list itselve. See here. - Mdd 11:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The history section need attention

The past discussion made me realize onces again, that the historical section seems way out of line of giving a representative image of the SE history. One third is about the INCOSE history. If you read it, you get the impression that SE started with INCOSE in the 1990s, while in fact the discipline emerged in the 50 years before that. - Mdd 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INCOSE's and this article's center of gravity

Copied from a previous talk-item here

I share you hesitations re. INCOSE. I'm not sure where INCOSE's center of gravity is, but in my opinion it's definitely not in the engineering part of "systems engineering." As such, they do more harm than good. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you are bringing something up with I couldn't really descripe yet. I have had a suspicion before, that there is something missing in the "center of gravity" of this article. I think, this article is more or less about Systems Engineering Management and that is not quiet the same as Systems Engineering. THis is also part of the reason, why I started a list of new lists of SE books and SE education, to get a better understanding of what SE is about...
Now I agree we have to be cautious with the current List of systems engineering at universities. But this list is beginning to tell me one thing. There is hardly only one kind of SE program at Universities, there are all kinds of SE programs...!? This is why I started to suspect that their are all kinds of types Systems Engineering as well. I am still investigating this also with the List of systems engineering books. - Mdd 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will follow the discussion and contribute where & when I can. -- Iterator12n Talk 14:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder If you could tell me were from you got this idea about INCOSE's main interests and if you could tell me some more about this? (... Ik vraag me trouwens ook af of jij een talenknobbel hebt en je zo uitstekend in het Nederlands weet te onderhouden, als je BABEL beweert?) Gegroet - Mdd 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. babbel, for me english is easier. Re. INCOSE, have to think about how I'll put it in words. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our discussion here brought as news

I happen to notice that the lastest link removed here

Had an article about our discussion, brought as latest news. This website brought the headline:

INCOSE takes a bashing from writers on Wikipedia.
Written by Administrator - Oct 29, 2007 at 07:26 PM
INCOSE is taking a lot of heat from the editors over on Wikipedia. There seems to be complaints about the motivation of the organization and their goals...

The further article refers to the above discussion here about What INCOSE writes about SE is citable...?? from 4 october 2007 between Alan and me. This article clearly takes parts of it out of perspective. It's clear to me that we were not talking about INCOSE in general but just as source for this Wikipedia article according to Wikipedia policies (I also made this more clear by adjusting the title a little). If this has caused any confusion I apologize. I am teh most amazed though, that this discussion is taken a source of news. - Mdd 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Systems Engineering's lead paragraph

The first remark is copied here from the user talk:Mdd

I don't have the time to quibble over the sentence that you inserted before the INCOSE definition – however, if you would do a textual analysis (“tekstverklaring”) on this single sentence of 18 words, you would find at least three issues. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with this textual analysis, and what issues it should bring. I do know however the criteria I used to develop this sentence:
  1. This sentence should be not to short and not to long
  2. It should focus on a general audience
  3. It should give a general description
  4. It should introduce the most basic terms, in this case: interdisciplinary, field of engineering, development, organization, complex, artificial and systems.
These are the arguments I generally use in all systems articles... and I have rephrased quit al lot of these article.
No if you want to rephrase the sentence here with these same words and criteria, be my guest. If you don't agree on these criterea, let me know here? -- Mdd (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ps. I would prefer a semantical analysis (?) around the question: Is or isn't SE interdisciplinary? a field of engineering? focusing on development? focusing on organization? an about complex, artificial and systems?

[edit] Removed "distinguish|engineering systems" tag

I removed this tag for three reasons:

  1. It draw's unneccecary attention away from the introduction of the article itselve
  2. The engineering systems tells me the two are related.
  3. And because of this the meaning this message becomes realy unclear and confusing.

But maybe I am mistaken here. So I could use some feed back here. -- Mdd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the engineering systems link because the title of that article and this one are so similar that they could easily be confused. Also, the difference between the two concepts is not well expressed on the engineering systems article and is not mentioned at all on the systems engineering article. For this reason, I am not totally convinced that these concepts are separate. A merge between the two articles may be a possibility, but a distinguishing link both articles is the bare minimum connection.
Neelix (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree on the last thing you mention, and added the link in the "see also" section. In the main time we proposed to change the name of the engineering systems article. -- Mdd (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Name of engineering systems article returned to its original form as MIT Engineering Systems Division. MIT is promoting the concept of "engineering systems" as a new distinction from "systems engineering" but I have not seen it in any other context. Until this concept is notable in its own right, it should remain a feature of MIT. ComputerGeezer (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of System Analysis Tools and techniques

I would like to see a good list of system analysis tools and techniques. This would include:

Flowchart, Venn diagram, Decision Table, Decision Tree, Decision Matrix, Matrix – many kinds, Cause, effect diagram,

Along with others I can’t think of. Where should this best appear? Should it be a section in this article or a separate list? What tools and techniques should be added? Thanks!--Lbeaumont (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Human-centered engineering"

I removed the following description:

Leveraging interdisciplinary methods, including those from engineering psychology, industrial engineering, ergonomics, systems engineering, user interface design, software usability, cognitive engineering and cognitive psychology, to enhance the relationship or fit between humans and work environments can be thought of as human-centered engineering (HCE). The objectives of HCE are to understand human skills and knowledge, study and analyze work environments, design better interactions between human and technology, and engineer better teams and organizations. The underlying intention is to prepare and enable humans to excel at their work. The use of models within HCE, both descriptive and executable, provides a framework to analyze work processes and identify opportunities and means for performance enhancement. Within this context there is a focus on the work environment as changeable and a source of constraints on human performance.

The term and description here and now seems like a first introduction in Wikipedia. Now this article is not the place to give such a first introduction. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)