Systems Engineering Division (SED) Workshop
Integrating Systems Engineering into
Engineering Education
INCOSE Academic Forum Summary
Dr. Alice F. Squires, Washington State University (WSU)
Dr. Fred Looft, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
Dr. Shamsnaz S. Virani, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
Thanks to our Sponsors
2
Agenda
• 1:00 – 1:30 pm: Introductory Material
– Introductions – around the room
• Please sign the roster and check if you want a workshop
report or would like to become involved in future workshops
–
–
–
–
Goals and Outcomes for Today
Results of Pre-workshop Survey
INCOSE Spring Academic Forum Overview
Team Formation
• 1:30 – 3:45 pm: Workshop Activities
– 1:30-2:15pm: Why? Value Proposition
– 2:15-3:00pm: What? What SE Knowledge is Needed?
– 3:00-3:45pm: How? Artifacts to Enable SE Education
• 3:45 – 4:00 pm: Wrap-up
– ASEE Survey is online
3
Goals and Outcomes for Today
• To provide an engaging hands-on interactive
workshop experience to the attendees.
– That will further our understanding of the need for
systems education for all engineers
– That will provide resources to support the above
need.
• To advance the ability of INCOSE to meet the
needs of engineering educators in the area of
systems education.
• To support ASEE’s goal to transform
undergraduate engineering education.
– To identify synergies between the two efforts
4
Results of Pre-Workshop Survey
16 Responses of 30 Participants
Pre-survey Question 1:
Group Selection
• Which group would you like to participate in
for the tutorial workshop activities (select
first, second, third choice)?
– (5 or 31%) Group A: General / introductory (eg.
first or second year) courses
– (4 or 25%) Group B: Courses with project based
(eg. case study, lab) activities (excluding
capstone/senior design experience)
– (7 or 44%) Group C: Capstone course or senior
design experience
6
Pre-survey Question 2: Context
• If you teach systems related principles, concepts, or
practices, what context do you teach in (choose all that
apply):
In support of another main topic within a course
As a specific systems focused module (lecture) within a course
As a course related to systems
As a non-capstone project based (eg. case study, lab) course
As a capstone course / senior design project
In an undergraduate engineering program
In a graduate engineering program
In an undergraduate non-engineering program
In a graduate non-engineering program
Other
Total
#
5
6
10
3
6
11
5
0
1
2
16
Ratio
31.2%
37.5%
62.5%
18.7%
37.5%
68.7%
31.2%
0.0%
6.2%
12.5%
100%
7
Pre-survey Question 3: Obstacles
• What problems have you faced in teaching
systems concepts, or what obstacles prevent
you from teaching systems concepts?
– Will cover under ‘Conveying Value Proposition’
8
Pre-survey Question 4:
Top “Takeaway” Themes
What is the top takeaway you expect to get out of this
workshop?
1. Training faculty on systems engineering terminology,
value, implementation; providing training to help faculty
build curriculum that also provides appropriate context
for students to understand systems concepts.
2. Providing best practices, resources, and tools for
integrating systems thinking and systems engineering
into the curriculum.
3. Building curriculum specifically for:
– Freshman / Design Courses
– Capstone Courses
4. Building a network of faculty interested in teaching
systems engineering concepts in their courses; become
sponsors for change.
9
INCOSE Spring Academic Forum
May 18-19, 2015
WPI, Worcester, MA
See:
http://www.wpi.edu/research/seli/incos
e61.html
INCOSE Spring Academic Forum
• Engaged academic, industry, and government
leaders in engineering education efforts
• Goal: To expand the role of systems knowledge
in the education of all engineers in three key
areas:
– Building a community of interest and looking for
support for this aim
– Describe and improve the knowledge base and links
to theory in both SE and Engineering Education
– Creating useful material, products, services, to
broaden existing successes; in University and
Practice
11
Day One
12
Day Two
13
Accreditors
Criteria
National
Educational
Professions
Societies
WHY?
What is the value of
Systems Education?
Society
Bodies of
Knowledge
Competency
Frameworks
STEM
Training
Systems
Education for
ALL Engineers
K-12
Teachers
Students
WHAT?
What Knowledge is
needed for Systems
Education?
HOW?
How do we enable
Systems
Education?
Engineering
Faculty
other
Faculty
Industry
University
Existing
Curricula
Systems
Engineers
Engineers
Capstones
Team Formation
Please move into your groups:
– Group A: General / introductory (eg. first or
second year) courses
– Group B: Courses with project based (eg. case
study, lab) activities (excluding capstone/senior
design experience)
– Group C: Capstone course or senior design
experience
15
Systems Engineering Division (SED) Workshop
Integrating Systems Engineering into
Engineering Education
Convey Value Proposition 
Select Knowledge Needed 
Identify Products and Material
• Dr. Alice F. Squires, Washington State University (WSU)
• Dr. Fred Looft, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
• Dr. Shamsnaz S. Virani, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
Accreditors
Criteria
National
Educational
Professions
Societies
WHY?
What is the value of
Systems Education?
Society
Bodies of
Knowledge
Competency
Frameworks
STEM
Training
Systems
Education for
ALL Engineers
K-12
Teachers
Students
WHAT?
What Knowledge is
needed for Systems
Education?
HOW?
How do we enable
Systems
Education?
Engineering
Faculty
other
Faculty
Industry
University
Existing
Curricula
Systems
Engineers
Engineers
Capstones
What is the Value of Systems
Education?
• Academic Forum Purpose:
– Describe the value of systems education to all
engineers in a language that engineers understand
and accept.
• Academic Forum Workshop Action:
– How do we answer the question of why we need
systems education for all engineers?
General Plan
• 5 minutes – Engagement
– Why Systems Education
• 25 minutes – Provide additional information
– Value proposition
– Successes, what works; obstacles, issues – more
info
• 15 minutes – show INCOSE Academic Forum
– What they defined as value proposition
19
Why Systems Education
Engineers competent in both systematic and
systemic approaches are better able to deliver
complex and interconnected components/
systems with predictable performance on
schedule, quality, cost, and alignment within a
dynamic, uncertain system of systems
environment
20
Geoff Moore’s Value
Proposition Template
Template
For ____________ (target
customer)
who ___________ (statement of
the need or opportunity)
our (product/service name)
is ____________ (product
category)
that (statement of benefit)
____________ .
Sample
• For non-technical marketers
• who struggle to find return
on investment in social
media
• our product is a web-based
analytics software
• that translates engagement
metrics into actionable
revenue metrics.
21
Value Proposition
Plan For Breakout Session
BREAKOUT!
• Goal One (Individual): Fill in 1. 5 minutes  Individual
the blanks in the template for
you.
• Goal Two (Group): Gain
Consensus on Value Statement
– Group A: 1st/2nd Year
– Group B: Case study, lab
– Group C: Capstone
2. 5 minutes  Share in Pair for
Group Category
3. 5 minutes  Entire Group
4. 6 minutes Groups Report
out for 2 minutes each
5. Turn in handouts and notes.
22
Results Value Propositions
1st /2nd year Value statement
For First Year Students in Engineering (target customer)
who _will be the future world class
engineering__________ (statement of the need or
opportunity)
Systems Education is fundamental to their development
as engineers____ (product category)
that (statement of benefit) _will make them the type of
engineer needed to solve 21st century problems
23
Results Value Propositions
Lab/Case Study Value statement
For Students in all engineering disciplines(target
customer)
who _will face ever-increasing complex system
designs__ (statement of the need or opportunity)
Systems Education is foundational base of
knowledge__ (product category)
that (statement of benefit) _provides an effective
method for approaching and collaborating on
complex problems
24
Results Value Propositions
Capstone Group Value statement
For Engineering Capstone Sponsors and engineering
employers (target customer)
who _have multi disciplinary engineering problem and
business need__________ (statement of the need or
opportunity)
Systems Education is a holistic approach to engineering
design and problem solving____________ (product
category)
that (statement of benefit) _will provide solutions to your
business needs and help with recruiting potential hires
for complex projects____ .
25
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Themes
What problems have you faced in teaching systems
concepts, or what obstacles prevent you from teaching
systems concepts?
1. Faculty need more training and preparation on systems
engineering material.
2. There is a perceived lack of value by colleagues and
students.
3. Students do not understand the concepts being taught.
4. Systems engineering principles, concepts, and
terminology are ambiguous.
5. There is a lack of systems engineering educational
material and resources.
6. There is no room in the curriculum.
26
Results: Successes
• What Works for Systems Education (all groups):
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Have a measurable learning objectives and beyond
Limited systems content inclusive in design courses
Teaching how to write and or think << systems>>
Clear Systems Flow Chart or Framework
2 day primer course for teaching systems
Predictable Hard Engineering Skills
Real Projects
Extra Curricular such as robotics / car competitions
Find time to teach Systems
27
INCOSE Academic Forum
• Proposed a succinct answer to “Why SE for all
engineers”
• Listed the target categories of audiences and
prioritized
• Focused on the two specific targets
– The non-SE engineering professor and listed positive and
negative influences
– National engineering societies and agencies
• Listed examples of systems education in
– Non-SE engineering programs
– SE programs with capstone
• Also listed some characteristics employers wish their
non-SE engineers possessed
INCOSE Academic Forum
Value Statement
• Engineers competent in both systematic and systemic
approaches are better able to deliver complex and
interconnected components/ systems with predictable
performance on schedule, quality, cost, and alignment
within a dynamic, uncertain system of systems
environment [NOTE: perhaps align with the INCOSE vision
2025 language?]
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• INCOSE establishes a “position” on this SE value
• INCOSE promotes this “position” within the membership
and to other engineering associations and agencies (q.v.)
• Consider the use of INCOSE development awards/grants for
this purpose
INCOSE Academic Forum
Proposed List of Three Target
Stakeholder Categories
• National Engineering Societies/Agencies and
analogous industrial associations, including
accrediting bodies
• Deans, Chairs, Professors
• Beneficiaries: Parents, students, and employers
General notion: have a “nudge” strategy to
facilitate progress on existing interests within and
between the three categories, such as providing
resources, etc.
INCOSE Academic Forum: Influencing National
Engineering Societies/ Agencies and analogous industrial
associations, including accrediting bodies
• Assess the landscape
– Identify appropriate societies, agencies, and associations
– Understand what language and other resources already
exist that support the systems education value statement
• Example: ABET student educational objectives c, h, and k are SErelated
• Meet with existing INCOSE Liaisons to societies with
which current relationships exist to develop an
approach to partnership in support of the value
statement
• Establish additional relationships where needed
GOAL: if a gap exists, achieve their buy-in to the value
proposition within their context and define appropriate
steps needed to accomplish this and sustain the
relationship
INCOSE Academic Forum: NonSE Professor “Force Field”
Engineering Professor
Adopting Systems
Education
INCOSE Academic Forum:
Examples of Systems Education
• Non Systems Engineering Programs With
Systems Capstone
• Systems Engineering Programs With Capstone
– Undergraduate
– Graduate
• http://www.incose.org/AboutSE/SEEducation/
SEProgramDirectory
INCOSE Academic Forum:
Characteristics Employers Wish Their
New-Hires Possessed
• Problem Formulation
• Stakeholder Status for Achieving
Requirements
• Comfortable Communicating Across
Domains/Disciplines
• General Awareness of Systems Management
• System Vs Sub-System Trades
• Modeling
• Comfortable/Proficient in Documentations
INCOSE Academic Forum:
Implementation Ideas
• Can we provide SE examples to ABET for their
workshops?
• Develop a central repository of systems educational
information (guest speakers, case studies, modules,
industry examples, etc.)
• Focused ASEE coordination: such as workshop
surveys, traditional training workshops, focused
papers on incorporating SE into existing capstone
project and courses
• SEBoK and GRCSE reflect the value statement and
emerging good practices
Thank you!
36
Systems Engineering Division (SED) Workshop
Integrating Systems Engineering into
Engineering Education
Convey Value Proposition 
Select Knowledge Needed 
Identify Products and Material
• Dr. Alice F. Squires, Washington State University (WSU)
• Dr. Fred Looft, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
• Dr. Shamsnaz S. Virani, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
Accreditors
Criteria
National
Educational
Professions
Societies
WHY?
What is the value of
Systems Education?
Society
Bodies of
Knowledge
Competency
Frameworks
STEM
Training
Systems
Education for
ALL Engineers
K-12
Teachers
Students
WHAT?
What Knowledge is
needed for Systems
Education?
HOW?
How do we enable
Systems
Education?
Engineering
Faculty
other
Faculty
Industry
University
Existing
Curricula
Systems
Engineers
Engineers
Capstones
What SE Knowledge do
Engineers Need?
• Academic Forum Purpose:
– Discuss the information needed to fully enable
systems engineering education for all engineers,
identifying the gaps in that information and
thinking about how to fill them.
• Academic Forum Workshop Action:
– How do we identify and organize the SE
knowledge that all engineers need?
• Knowledge: Shall make engineers better engineers
• Knowledge: Provides value for engineers, educators,
institutions and future employers
Four Key Areas Identified
1. Systems Science and
Fundamentals: Formal
science dealing with the
nature of systems; the
science “behind”
systems engineering.
2. Systems Thinking:
Holistic thinking. Critical
thinking guided by
systems theory.
3. Design and Analysis: The
examination of a
problem from all aspects
and the development of
an effective solution.
4. Technical and Project
Management: Applying
knowledge, skills, tools,
and techniques to manage
the cost, schedule, and
technical aspects of a
project to meet the
project requirements.
40
Systems Science
1. Systems Science and Fundamentals
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Understanding Complexity
Systems Theory
Emergence
System Patterns (e.g., feedback, cycles, hierarchies)
System Taxonomies
41
Systems Thinking
2. Systems Thinking
a. Interdependencies (interactions, interfaces,
relationships) among multi-disciplines
b. Problem Analysis (goals and objectives, needs
statement, requirements elicitation)
c. Total Life-cycle View
d. Multiple and holistic perspectives
e. System definition, purpose, scoping
f. Users / stakeholders
g. Context and environment
42
Design and Analysis
3. Design and Analysis
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Systems Architecture and Analysis
System Modeling
Requirements Analysis
Trade off and decision analysis
Dealing with complexity
Systems Integration
Verification and Validation (V&V)
CONOPS = Concept of Operations
Design reviews
-ilities (inc. reliability, availability, maintainability,
supportability, producibility, security, safety, usability,
affordability, sustainability)
43
Technical and Project Mgmt
4. Technical and Project Management
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Dealing with Uncertainties and Change
Risk/opportunities
Life-cycle models
Project Planning and Performance
Configuration management and control
Requirements Management
Milestone Reviews (program & technical)
44
Collect Votes –
By A Show of Hands
1.
Systems Science and
Fundamentals
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3.
Understanding Complexity
Systems Theory
Emergence
System Patterns (e.g.,
feedback, cycles, hierarchies)
System Taxonomies
Design and Analysis
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
2.
Systems Thinking
a.
Interdependencies (interactions, interfaces,
relationships) among multi-disciplines
Problem Analysis (goals and objectives, needs
statement, requirements elicitation)
Total Life-cycle View
Multiple and holistic perspectives
System definition, purpose, scoping
Users / stakeholders
Context and environment
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
4.
Systems Architecture and Analysis
System Modeling
Requirements Analysis
Trade off and decision analysis
Dealing with complexity
Systems Integration
Verification and Validation
CONOPS = Concept of Operations
Design reviews
-ilities (inc. reliability, availability,
maintainability, supportability,
producibility, security, safety, usability,
affordability, sustainability)
Technical and Project
Management
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Dealing with Uncertainties and
Change
Risk/opportunities
Life-cycle models
Project Planning and Performance
Configuration management and
control
Requirements Management
Milestone Reviews (program &
technical)
45
Results of Voting During
ASEE Workshop
1.
Systems Science and
Fundamentals
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
3.
(5) Understanding Complexity
(3) Systems Theory
(3) Emergence
(1) System Patterns (e.g.,
feedback, cycles, hierarchies)
System Taxonomies
Design and Analysis
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
2.
Systems Thinking
a.
(22) Interdependencies (interactions, interfaces,
relationships) among multi-disciplines
(6) Problem Analysis (goals and objectives, needs
statement, requirements elicitation)
(1) Total Life-cycle View
(1) Multiple and holistic perspectives
(1) System definition, purpose, scoping
(1) Users / stakeholders
Context and environment
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(1) Systems Architecture and Analysis 4.
(7) System Modeling
(5) Requirements Analysis
(6) Trade off and decision analysis
Dealing with complexity
(4) Systems Integration
Verification and Validation
CONOPS = Concept of Operations
(2) Design reviews
(2) -ilities (inc. reliability, availability,
maintainability, supportability,
producibility, security, safety, usability,
affordability, sustainability)
Technical and Project Management
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Dealing with Uncertainties and Change
(1) Risk/opportunities
Life-cycle models
(1) Project Planning and Performance
(2) Configuration management and
control
(2) Requirements Management
Milestone Reviews (program & technical)
46
Results of Voting during
ASEE Workshop: Top 6
• Top 1: Systems Thinking: (2a – 22 votes) Interdependencies
(interactions, interfaces, relationships) among multi-disciplines
• Top 2: Design and Analysis: (3b – 7 votes) System Modeling
• Top 3: Design and Analysis: (3d – 6 votes) Trade off and decision
analysis
• Top 4: Systems Thinking: (2b – 6 votes) Problem Analysis (goals
and objectives, needs statement, requirements elicitation)
• Top 5: Design and Analysis: (3c – 5 votes) Requirements Analysis
• Top 6: Systems Science and Fundamentals: (1a – 5 votes)
Understanding Complexity
Please note: Top 3 and Top 4 have same number of votes; Top 5 and
Top 6 have same number of votes.
47
Bloom’s Levels
• Remember: The student can recall or remember
the information.
• Understand: The student can explain the ideas or
concepts to someone else.
• Apply: The student can use the information in a
new way.
• Analyze: The student can exam and distinguish
between the different parts.
• Evaluate: The student can justify taking a stand or
making a decision.
• Create: The student can create a new product or
point of view or advance the state of the art.
48
See Handouts
Map Top 6 (was 5) to Bloom’s Cognitive Domain
System
Knowledge
Differentiators
Remember
Understand
Apply
Analyze Evaluate Create
Top 1
Top 2
Top 3
Top 4
Top 5
Top 6 *NEW*
49
Knowledge Products
Plan For Breakout Session
BREAKOUT!
• Goal One (Individual/Pair): 1. 5 minutes  Individual
Categorize Top Five by Bloom’s
Levels By the Group Type
• Goal Two (Entire Group):
Categorize Top Five by Bloom’s
Levels By the Group Type
• Group Type:
– Group A: 1st/2nd Year
– Group B: Case study, lab
– Group C: Capstone
2. 5 minutes  Share in Pair for
Group Category
3. 5 minutes  Entire Group
4. 6 minutes Groups Report
out for 2 minutes each
5. Turn in handouts and notes.
50
Results: Group A – 1st/2nd Year
Group A: 1st/2nd Year
System Knowledge
Differentiators
Remember
Top 1:
Interdependencies
Understand
Apply Analyze Evaluate
1
2
1
1
1
1
Top 3: Trade-off &
Decision Analysis
2
2
Top 4: Problem Analysis
2
2
2
1
Top 2: System Modeling
1
Top 5: Requirements
Analysis
1
Top 6: Understanding
Complexity
4
Note: some of the forms were not turned in or did not specify group
Create
51
Results: Group B – Class Project
Group B: Class Project
System Knowledge
Differentiators
Top 1:
Interdependencies
Remember
Understand
Apply Analyze Evaluate
3
Top 2: System Modeling
1
2
2
Top 3: Trade-off &
Decision Analysis
4
Top 4: Problem Analysis
2
1
Top 5: Requirements
Analysis
1
2
Top 6: Understanding
Complexity
Create
1
1
4
Note: some of the forms were not turned in or did not specify group
52
Results: Group C – Capstone
Group C: Capstone
System Knowledge
Differentiators
Remember
Understand
Apply Analyze Evaluate
Top 1:
Interdependencies
1
1
Top 2: System Modeling
2
2
Top 3: Trade-off &
Decision Analysis
3
Create
1
2
2
4
Top 4: Problem Analysis
1
1
2
2
Top 5: Requirements
Analysis
1
2
1
2
1
2
Top 6: Understanding
Complexity
3
Note: some of the forms were not turned in or did not specify group
53
Results Observations
• Expected level of Bloom’s cognitive domain increases
from 1st/2nd year to project/case study to capstone.
• All of the top 6 chosen at ASEE are within the top 10
chosen at INCOSE Academic forum.
– Although emphasis in certain areas is different.
• However, the top 10 are not the same. There are 3
additional ASEE in the top 9 for ASEE; not chosen at the
INCOSE Academic forum:
– Top 7: Design and Analysis: (34 – 4 votes) Systems
Integration (1 vote at INCOSE Academic Forum)
– Top 8: Systems Science and Fundamentals: (1b – 3 votes)
Systems Theory (1 vote at INCOSE Academic Forum)
– Top 9: Systems Science and Fundamentals: (1c – 3 votes)
Emergence (0 votes at INCOSE Academic Forum)
54
INCOSE Academic Forum Results:
Systems Science and
Systems Thinking
1. Systems Science
and Fundamentals
a. Understanding
Complexity (3)
b. Systems Theory (1)
c. Emergence
d. System Patterns
(e.g., feedback,
cycles, hierarchies)
(1)
e. System
Taxonomies (1)
2. Systems Thinking
a. Interdependencies (interactions,
interfaces, relationships) among multidisciplines (8)
b. Problem Analysis (goals and objectives,
needs statement, requirements
elicitation) (7)
c. Total Life-cycle View (4)
d. Multiple and holistic perspectives (2)
e. System definition, purpose, scoping (1)
f. Users / stakeholders
g. Context and environment
55
INCOSE Academic Forum Results:
Design and Analysis /
Technical and Project Mgmt
3. Design and Analysis
4. Technical and Project
Management
a. Systems Architecture and Analysis (5)
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
System Modeling (2)
Requirements Analysis (3)
Trade off and decision analysis (2)
Dealing with complexity
Systems Integration (1)
V&V
CONOPS
Design reviews
-ilities (inc. reliability, availability,
maintainability, supportability,
producibility, security, safety, usability,
affordability, sustainability)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Dealing with
Uncertainties and
Change (4)
Risk/opportunities
Life-cycle models
Project Planning and
Performance
Configuration
management and
control
Requirements
Management
Milestone Reviews
(program & technical)
56
INCOSE Academic Forum Outcome:
Top Ten
1. Systems Thinking: (2a - 8 votes) Interdependencies
2. Systems Thinking: (2b - 7 votes) Problem Analysis
3. Design and Analysis: (3a - 5 votes) Systems Architecture and
Analysis
4. Systems Thinking: (2c - 4 votes) Total Life-cycle View
5. Technical and Project Management: (4a - 4 votes) Dealing
with Uncertainties and Change
6. Systems Science and Fundamentals: (1a - 3 votes)
Understanding Complexity
7. Design and Analysis: (3c - 3 votes) Requirements Analysis
8. Design and Analysis: (3b - 2 votes) System Modeling
9. Design and Analysis: (3d - 2 votes) Trade off and decision
analysis
10. Systems Thinking: (2d - 2 votes) Multiple and holistic
perspectives
57
Results Comparison: ASEE Top 9 (27
voters) and INCOSE Top 10 (9 voters)
58
Results Comparison
Observations
• Both groups agreed on the top area that needs to be addressed and this area
also received the bulk of the votes:
– 2a. Systems Thinking: Interdependencies (interactions, interfaces,
relationships) among multi-disciplines
• Problem Analysis was just as important as Trade Off and Decision Analysis for
the ASEE faculty; versus 3x the importance for INCOSE reps.
• Systems Integration and Systems Theory in the ASEE Top 9, did not make the
INCOSE Top 10, but were similarly weighted.
• ASEE faculty selected Emergence in their Top 9; Emergence received no
emphasis from the INCOSE AF group.
• The main discrepancies were in the following four areas – these areas may be
sufficiently covered elsewhere in the undergraduate engineering curriculum:
– 2b. Systems Thinking: Problem Analysis (goals and objectives, needs
statement, requirements elicitation)
– 3a. Design and Analysis: Systems Architecture and Analysis
– 2c. Systems Thinking: Total Life-cycle View
– 4a. Technical and Project Mgmt: Dealing with Uncertainties and Change 59
Long-Term Goal: Tabulating
Information Across
Engineering Disciplines
Map Top 10 to Engineering Disciplines
System
Knowledge
Differentiators
EE
ChemE
Bio
ME
SWE
Industrial
Aerospace
Civil
And
More….
Top 1
Analyze
Remember
-
Understand
Create
Apply
Remember
-
Evaluate
Top 2
Evaluate
-
Create
Analyze
-
Understand
-
Analyze
-
Top 3
Understand
Analyze
Remember
-
Apply
-
Understand
-
Evaluate
Top 4
Understand
Apply
-
Evaluate
-
Understand
-
Create
Analyze
Top 5
Apply
-
Understand
Remember
-
-
Understand
-
Top 6
-
Analyze
Remember
Evaluate
-
Evaluate
-
Apply
Top 7
Evaluate
Understand
Evaluate
Apply
Understand
-
Analyze
-
Create
Top 8
Create
-
Apply
Analyze
-
Evaluate
-
Understand
--
Top 9
Remember
Remember
-
-
Create
Apply
-
Remember
Remember
Top 10
Analyze
-
Understand
Apply
Understand
-
Remember
Apply
Thank you!
61
Systems Engineering Division (SED) Workshop
Integrating Systems Engineering into
Engineering Education
Convey Value Proposition 
Select Knowledge Needed 
Identify Products and Material
• Dr. Alice F. Squires, Washington State University (WSU)
• Dr. Fred Looft, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
• Dr. Shamsnaz S. Virani, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
Accreditors
Criteria
National
Educational
Professions
Societies
WHY?
What is the value of
Systems Education?
Society
Bodies of
Knowledge
Competency
Frameworks
STEM
Training
Systems
Education for
ALL Engineers
K-12
Teachers
Students
WHAT?
What Knowledge is
needed for Systems
Education?
HOW?
How do we enable
Systems
Education?
Engineering
Faculty
other
Faculty
Industry
University
Existing
Curricula
Systems
Engineers
Engineers
Capstones
How do We Enable
Systems Education?
• Academic Forum Purpose:
– Identifying useful products we could begin to
create and thinking about how to start creating
and sharing them.
• Academic Forum Workshop Action:
– Focus on:
• Quick wins
• Starting to define how to share in longer term
Agenda / Outcomes
Agenda
• Tactics and Products for Faculty
o breakout - 10 minutes
• Tactics and Products for Students
o breakout - 10 minutes
• Academic Forum Contrast/Compare
• Prioritize
Outcomes
• Products and Priorities
65
How do We Enable Systems
Education in these groups?
Target Faculty Audiences
• TrailBlazer
o very knowledgeable
o comfortable teaching
• Willing Adopter
o some knowledge
o want to learn/apply
• Not Interested
BREAKOUT!
1. pick a group
2. 10 minutes 
tactics and
products best
for ... & ...
3. How best to
reach out to?
– unknown knowledge
– don’t see value
– how convince
66
How do We Enable Systems
Education in these groups?
Target Faculty Audiences
• TrailBlazer
o very knowledgeable
o comfortable teaching
Results
• Willing Adopter
o some knowledge
o want to learn/apply
• Not Interested
– unknown knowledge
– don’t see value
– how convince
Tactics?
Products?
Priorities?
67
How do We Enable Systems
Education?: Results for Trailblazer
• Show value to others
– Data (assessment)
– Advisors
•
•
•
Bring in advocates
Videos
Alumni
– ABET
• Success stories from non-SEs
• Mentoring Willing Adopters
68
How do We Enable Systems
Education?: Results for Willing
Adopters
• Mentor (e.g. co-teaching)
• 3-5 day on-site workshop
– Going to central locations to build network
– Expert coming to institution
• Dissemination of teaching products (e.g.
case studies, lectures, assignments)
• Open source modeling tool (software) or
CASE
• Communication about / community of interest to
recognize resources
69
How do We Enable Systems
Education?: Results for Not
Interested
•
•
•
•
Punt
Guest Lecturer
Superstar Alumni
Endorsed Examples
– How? Covertly
– Find a person who can make them
70
Knowledge Products
Levels of Student Material
• First Year (or two)
o naive
o limited “methods” understanding
• Upper Level Course Inclusion
o project based learning
o not necessarily engineering ?
BREAKOUT!
1. pick a group
2. 10 minutes 
tactics and
products best
for ...
3. When/how best
to present ...
• Capstone
– most likely a course format
(many students, one or few instructors/advisors)
71
Knowledge Products
Levels of Student Material
• First Year (or two)
Results
o naive
o limited “methods” understanding
• Upper Level Course Inclusion
o project based learning
o not necessarily engineering ?
• Capstone
Tactics?
Products?
Priorities?
– most likely a course format
(many students, one or few instructors/advisors)
72
What Knowledge Products are needed?:
Results for Group A: 1st/2nd Year
•
•
•
•
Simple digital tools
Messaging tools
How to “Sell” Themselves
Subset of specific demonstrable skills
73
What Knowledge Products are needed?:
Results for Group B: Class Project
•
•
•
•
**Formal Exposure
3/5 Overview Slides
1 Slide on Industry application of SE
**Course Outcome
– Project Deliverable
• *Feedback
– Poster Day
– Regional & National Competition
– Industry Showcase
74
What Knowledge Products are needed?:
Results for Group C: Capstone
• Software tools (emphasis on modeling)
• Examples for use in class (diversity is good)
–
–
Well done example
Bad example
• Representatives from industry
–
–
Talking about experience
Dealing with codes and standards
• How students can market themselves to
employers
• Connection of SE to design process
• Give time to fail
75
INCOSE Academic Forum Results
76
Comparison Comments
• What did we miss?
o
o
o
o
Comments
people
tactics
products
presentations (conferences,
workshops, etc.)
• Priorities?
• Other
Anything Goes!
– anything goes!
77
Summary
• Regardless of the priorities and products, SE knowledge has to
be developed & presented in context.
• SE principles are incorporated in ABET outcomes.
ABET Criterion 3: Student Outcomes
(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical,
health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
(g) an ability to communicate effectively
(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions
in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary
for engineering practice.
78
Forward Plan
• We will provide a summary report of this
workshop to the attendees who requested.
– Please hand in sheets filled in during each session
– Please hand in notes used to report out on
• Additional workshops are being performed
around the world, planning is still in progress:
–
–
–
–
Possibly early in October 2015 in Paris
Spring 2016 in USA
Summer 2016 at INCOSE IS in UK
Autumn 2016 in Asia Pacific (India or South Korea)
• Panel and workshop on SE applied to capstone, at
the capstone design conference June 2016 – see
handout
79
Wrap-up
• Did we get it right?
• What worked well what didn’t work well.
• What type of tutorials and workshop would be
helpful to you next year?
• What other type of resources will be helpful
• How else would you like to be engaged?
80
Backup Slides
81
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Themes
1. Faculty need more training and preparation on
systems engineering material
2. There is a perceived lack of value by colleagues and
students.
3. Students do not understand the concepts being
taught.
4. Systems engineering principles, concepts, and
terminology are ambiguous.
5. There is a lack of systems engineering educational
material and resources.
6. There is no room in the curriculum.
82
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Theme: #1
• Faculty need more training and preparation on
systems engineering material
– I don't have that much background in systems engineering
myself and would love some more formal training.
– Helping students define inputs and outputs appropriately or
helping students decompose system into sub-systems.
– For undergrads, I would like to begin introducing the
principles of systems engineering, but I am not sure exactly
how and when to do so.
83
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Theme: #2
• There is a perceived lack of value by colleagues and
students.
– How to get students to value the big-picture view of systems
when their own perspective is much more narrowly focused on
the here and now.
– The testing and integration phases are usually too quickly bypassed to get straight to operation or final assessment. How can
we slow the students down with out deflating their "balloon of
excitement" for a project.
– Teaching SE concepts without previous (other engineering
background) or concurrent (project-based learning) experience
leaves the student thinking most of the topics are intuitive
anyway (i.e. not rigorous or difficult to implement, though in
reality we all know this to be false).
84
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Theme: #3
• Students do not understand the concepts being taught.
– Students do not have a good idea of how (or motivation) to
evaluate sub-systems before integration.
– It can be difficult at times for me to express what I am thinking
because systems concepts are so obvious to me. Or I will ask
questions related to systems concepts and the students do not
understand or comprehend what I am asking.
– Intro SE courses are too broad to be rigorous, and advanced SE
courses are too specialized to maintain the broad SE viewpoint of
problems.
– I would like graduate students to do some modeling, but systems
modeling languages (SysML) are not intuitive (at least that's what
my students claim).
– It seems that freshmen are not ready for such concepts.
85
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Theme: #4
• Systems engineering principles, concepts, and
terminology are ambiguous.
– The lack of clear, SE first principles upon which to build.
– My institution's previous attempt at "systems thinking for
the masses" with an early engineering exposure/survey
course of various disciplines failed at producing a systems
perspective and largely dragged the students through each
of the separate, non-integrated engineering domains.
86
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Theme: #5
• There is a lack of systems engineering educational
material and resources.
– Lack of learning objectives
– Lack of ready-to-teach quality material that is not discipline
specific.
– Perhaps the largest obstacle is to come up with a set of
"Real Life" problems/projects/challenges that would be
suitable for all levels of the 4+ years of undergrad
education.
87
Pre-survey Question 3:
Top “Obstacle” Theme: #6
• There is no room in the curriculum.
– There is not enough time in a 3 credit course to cover
theory and modeling, and not enough curriculum space to
add yet another course.
– The senior curriculum is already jammed.
– Not sure that there are any obstacles other than time. The
capstone design courses in chemical engineering have
traditionally focused only on the specifications to design
portion of the system lifecycle. We do cover safety,
environmental impact, and operability of the designs.
88
Pre-survey Question 4:
Top “Takeaway” Themes
What is the top takeaway you expect to get out of this
workshop?
1. Training faculty on systems engineering terminology,
value, implementation; providing training to help faculty
build curriculum that also provides appropriate context
for students to understand systems concepts.
2. Providing best practices, resources, and tools for
integrating systems thinking and systems engineering
into the curriculum.
3. Building curriculum specifically for:
– Freshman / Design Courses
– Capstone Courses
4. Building a network of faculty interested in teaching
systems engineering concepts in their courses; become
sponsors for change.
89
Pre-survey Question 4:
Top “Takeaway” Theme: #1
• Training faculty on systems engineering terminology,
value, implementation; providing the tools to help faculty
build curriculum that also provides appropriate context
for students to understand systems concepts.
– A set of Learning Objectives
– Systems engineering overview.
– Good, clear delineations of the terms (systemology, systems
thinking, systems engineering, engineering management)
so that we are clear on the aims of the workshop.
– To better understand the challenges associated with
Systems Engineering in general
– What is meant by integrating systems thinking into all
courses.
– How to create and conduct a course in this field.
90
Pre-survey Question 4:
Top “Takeaway” Theme: #2
• Providing best practices, resources, and tools
for integrating systems thinking and systems
engineering into the curriculum
– Best way to integrate in Design / Engineering PBL
(problem based learning) and TBL (team based
learning) courses.
– Techniques that facilitate system thinking and
connection making in an integrated curriculum.
– What works and what should be avoided - the key
principles / tenets for integrating SE into an
engineering / undergrad curriculum
91
Pre-survey Question 4:
Top “Takeaway” Theme: #3
• Building curriculum specifically for:
– Freshman / Design Courses
• Best practices for inclusion of systems engineering in undergrad
curriculum.
• Best practices for application of modeling languages.
• 3 beneficial ideas that I can implement in my "Systems Engineering and
Freshman Design" course.
• Effective ways of teaching systems engineering to freshman.
– Capstone Courses
• Useful resources for preparing materials/approaches in capstone
course.
• How to incorporate a more complete systems lifecycle view into the
capstone design courses.
92
Pre-survey Question 4:
Top “Takeaway” Theme: #4
• Building a network of faculty interested in
teaching systems engineering concepts in their
courses; become sponsors for change.
• What other educators think about this subject.
• How others are teaching systems concepts in their courses
• Building a network of other engineering education
professionals interested in promoting Systems Engineering
• A stronger voice for making valuable change
93