Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The article systems engineering 1.1 Some random thoughts 1.2 Some more expert opinions 1.3 An image

The article systems engineering

This discussion started Allan Mc Innes talk page, proceded on the WikiProject Systems talk page and was then moved here

Towards the project maybe we can start by exchaning some ideas about the path and content to go on. I'm wondering a few things. Do you have a particulair example article in the Wikipedia, of how you would like the systems engineering article to become? And are you also a member of INCOSE? ... - Mdd 00:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

... In answer to your specific questions:

1. I have no particular example article in mind. Most of the Wikipedia articles that I've looked at which cover professions seem to be poorly structured and rife with uncited opinion. The Science and Mathematics articles are probably about the best I've seen, and even they are somewhat flawed.
2. I was a member of INCOSE for a number of years, but let my membership lapse about a year ago.

Regarding specific ideas for how to develop the systems engineering article, here are a few:

1. One thing that I'm keen on doing is incorporating some information from Hitchins' writings. Unlike many writers of system engineering textbooks, Hitchins tends to be good about placing the ideas he presents within a historical context, and relating them to other developments in the systems field.
2. In a similar vein, I feel that the systems engineering article should do more to establish the context of systems engineering relative to things like systems thinking and general systems theory. Some of that context-setting could probably take place in an expanded history section.
3. The "Successes and failures" section can probably be condensed, and moved into the history section.
4. The article (like INCOSE) seems to focus mostly on "big" systems engineering for government and military projects. It ignores interesting applications of SE concepts in areas like enterprise design, or earth-systems engineering. It also ignores systems engineering "in the small" - for example the systems engineering of a consumer electronic device.
5. Some discussion of the tools and practices used by systems engineers might help readers gain a more concrete understanding of what it is that systems engineers do. I'm thinking here of things like functional flow block diagrams, state diagrams, interface diagrams, N2 charts, dynamic system simulations, etc.

Do you have any thoughts on these suggestions? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to get this discussion on a more conceptual level, not thinking solutions, content to add or content to change, but fundamentals of an article, problems with the current state of the article and ideals to work for. Here are some of my first thoughts about this:

1. Fundamentals are the target group(s) of the article. I think this should be from highschool students to experts. The Science- and Mathematics- article doesn't seem to address beginners?
2. The picture of sytems engineering: it's boundaries, it's parts, it's relation and overlap with other field..., it's representatives. This picture can be put in a template or not?
3. Establish the context of systems engineering relative to things like systems thinking and general systems theory... is a good concept. The concept general systems theory is hardly mentioned yet in the Wikipedia. More of this missing anchors should be identified.
4. Such a missing anchors is a clear article about systems...
5. There is a last thing I want to mention, that is the point of view to look at systems engineering. SE can be seen as a combination of tools, as a combination of sciences, or a combination of professions... depending on the way you look at it. A global encyclopedic article should combine those views. The current article has that, and that's something we should loose.

So these are the more conceptual suggestions I have. - Mdd 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the SE article should serve several, interlocking purposes:

1. A terminal (or leaf-node) article for someone exploring the notion of systems within Wikipedia.
2. A stand-alone article describing systems engineering, for someone looking simply to understand what SE is.
3. A starting point (or root-node) article for someone interested in exploring more detailed information about specific aspects of systems engineering.

The first purpose implies a need for back-links up to more general articles (e.g. systems, systems thinking, etc.) and cross-links to related disciplines operating at a similar conceptual level (e.g. architecture, systems architecting(?), systems biology, software engineering(?) etc.). It also implies a need for (brief) discussions of the relationships between systems engineering and the topics of these other articles. These discussions could certainly be pitched at the level of a high school student.

The second purpose implies a need for a (relatively) self-contained description of the purpose, goals, past history, and current state of practice in systems engineering. The first three of these should be completely accessible to high-school students. The fourth element may only be partially accessible to high-school students, since it may get into detail that is relevant only to experts - although much of that kind of detail should probably be deferred to subsidiary articles. See next point...)

The third purpose implies a need for an overview of the various more-detailed subjects that are associated with SE, with pointers to more detailed articles. I'm thinking here of pointers to specifics such as Sysml, Dependency Structure Matrix, or functional requirements. It also suggests some kind of "further reading" list, and a few external links to other resources on systems engineering.

Have I missed a purpose? (Probably - hopefully someone else will point it out). Are there any obvious article "architectures" which arise from the points above? Several?

Note that to really address the first and third purposes it will probably be necessary to reach beyond the boundary of the SE article itself, and make edits to the "surrounding" articles such that they mesh with the evolving SE article.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for referring me to the discussion here. I can't think of any concern I initially had on seeing the SE article that is not addressed here. To explain what I said on the SE talk page, the article, although it has some good ideas, isn't properly organized (it begins by talking about SE the discipline, and then, without any clear demarcation, goes on to discuss SE the approach). As a former SE student, I was primarily looking for the second purpose you've listed above. I agree that topics like general systems theory, and systems thinking, should mesh with the SE article too, but looking at the page as an encyclopedic entry, I am inclined to vote for the article serving the second purpose more than the first and third. In addition, SE tools (point 5 in the specific ideas above) are something that definitely need more than a mention. gnusbiz 07:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read your intentions on the SE talk page, and as you can read here, we fully agree with you. We are also in search of input from people like you (former SE students, now SE worker(?)). So I hope we can exchange more ideas and work on improving the SE article. Unfortunatly I'm taking a two weeks break starting tomorrow, but after that I like to get back on this. Feel free to do what you intended to do... with the SE article. Working in the Wikipedia is often two steps forward and one step back (sometimes even one step forward and two back), so maybe you can provide us with the two steps forward. I hope you find ideas's here that can inspire you. You don't have to wait on further discussion here. But you welcome to contribute here also. Best regards - Mdd 13:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand what you mean. A continuous review of any edits to the article would certainly be helpful. I just edited the overview (now renamed to concept) section. I was also wondering about any diagrams/pictures that should go into this page. The QFD (House of Quality) is a famous one; do you have any others in mind?. I don't exactly work as an SE right now (I am still studying, although its aerosp. now). I was a member of INCOSE for three years until this year. gnusbiz 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Some random thoughts

If I may, I'd like to chip in with some thoughts on this article and how it might be improved. I've been a systems engineer for several years and a member of INCOSE.

• Use the term systems engineering consistently. The s on system is very important.
• The article could use some top-down structuring. In its current form, it kind of wanders around, and it's difficult to figure out what point it's really trying to make. I'm not suggesting a complete rewrite ... a restructuring of existing sub-articles should do the trick. Following a systems engineering approach should help:
  • identify the article's purpose (requirements analysis)
  • determine a structure (architecture design)
  • fill in the structure (detail design and implementation)
  • benchmark the results (validation and verification)
• Use simpler language. Keep the sentences short. Reduce the number of dependent clauses (commas). And use simpler words. I have difficulty understanding some of the sections. Example: is the word dénouement (which I had to look up in a dictionary) appropriate in this context? The article should make it easy for the average person to understand what systems engineering is all about. For too long, the SE field has been somewhat elitist, and that is changing. This article should reflect that.
• Make sure the facts are correct. The initial paragraph in the Overview section says that SE does not build tangible products, which could not be further from the truth. It is systems engineering that produces aircraft, color copiers, vending machines, etc. and these are all tangible. Yes, SE uses theory and abstract processes, but the result is always something tangible. It wouldn't be engineering if it didn't.
• State more facts, not opinions. Avoid words like spectacularly successful, and make sure each statement can be backed up by a reputable source.
• There is an abnormally high amount of discussion on closely related fields that perhaps could be reduced, or maybe the details moved to separate articles. This article is about Systems Engineering, yet SE seems to play a minor role compared to the others.

Overall, this is an interesting article on systems engineering, which is a topic close to my heart. I would love to see it improved, and will do what I can to assist in that endeavor. Truthanado 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To that list I would add:

• Provide citations. Ideally inline citations using ref tags.
• Where opinion is included (as it must be, since e.g. there is no "one true SE" that everyone agrees on), cite the opinions of specific, named, notable individuals.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome at this archive of talk pages of the WikiProject Systems Engineering. This pages stores closed discussion, so pleace don't edit here. These discussion will be stored thematical and historical. For questions en remarks, contact Mdd.

Some more expert opinions

Before we proceed, I propose we take some time, say a week, to gather some more different perspectives and expert opinions on systems engineering and the current article. So I like to invite expert here to give their perceptions on this situation. - Mdd 09:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An image

Within the Systems Engineering images I uploaded I found one scheme, that gives a detailled plan for improvement.

Off cause we know this is a ordinairy example of what Systems Engineering offers. The improvement we seek is seen as one whole, as one process, in which we can determine three steps.

For Systems Engineers this is allmost to ordinary to mention. But recent discussion, see [1] made me realize, that young people don't associate the systems approach with the systems theory... They probably won't associate this ordinary image with systems engineering. Maybe this is a thing the SE article should stipulate also. - Mdd 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)