Transforming systems engineering principles into integrated project team practice

Arnold, Stuart (2008) Transforming systems engineering principles into integrated project team practice. PhD thesis, Cranfield University, UK.

Abstract

This investigation considers the composition, status, principles and defence acquisition setting of systems engineering. From these some opportunities for enhancement of its practice are considered. It opens with a re-assessment of the disciplinary essence of systems engineering. Systems engineering is considered as an amalgam of three components – systems reasoning, engineering and management – that form a coherent and distinctive discipline. It is advanced that a fresh balance of system-related factors, characterised in this text as systems reasoning, is the distinguishing essence of systems engineering. It conveys a rationale for present-day practice and provides a basis for advancements. Consideration is given to the construction of a systems engineering framework, built from a re-interpretation of engineering and management science constructs. A triptych of viewpoints of systems engineering, comprising connected representations of business process, organisational capability and individual competence, is proposed and outlined. These three essential views define a paradigm of systems engineering able to structure present-day engineering complexities and risks, and permit project and enterprise control of business achievement and risk exposure. An analysis of the UK MOD acquisition setting for systems engineering, and an Integrated Project Team Leader survey of prevailing system engineering attitudes, experiences, expectations and concerns, set the scene for practice advancements. The first of these is based on a rigorous view of what capability means and how this impacts IPT technical contributions and responsibilities. The effectiveness of the current MOD acquisition cycle is then considered. An alternative, that might better serve the changing nature of investment constraints and effective capability delivery, is presented. Approaches to systems engineering planning are then analysed and a conclusion drawn regarding a planning instrument for IPTs that balances prescription, guidance and didacticism. An assessment of how requirements assist and hinder working with customers and suppliers dissects the intent and content of requirements, including their contrasting technical and commercial purposes. System descriptions, their relationship and their concordance are then considered in a detailed look inside the technical processes, and this includes the principles and methods employed to design architecture. The resolution of current conflicts and confusions over architecture is seen to lie in observance of disciplined systems engineering principles. Finally the systems engineering views of humans inside and outside the system boundary are explored, and the investigation closes with a consideration of the degree to which systems engineering may reasonably address social influences.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Index terms: exposure, organizational capability, complexity, competence, management science, survey, reasoning, resolution, project team, prescription, paradigm, investigation, effectiveness, systems engineering, acquisition
Subjects: cognitive psychology, medical science and clinical practice, systems engineering, conflict resolution, sociology, personnel development, education and knowledge transfer, management, public and environmental health, performance management, project delivery, data collection methods, business
Topics: Engineering Principles, Project Management, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Human Resources, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here