Is there value in INCOSE?
-
Upload
joseph-kasser -
Category
Engineering
-
view
199 -
download
2
Transcript of Is there value in INCOSE?
1
Is there value in INCOSE?
As of February 2016Dr Joseph E. Kasser, DSc, CEng, CM, FIET, FIES,
FINCOSE, CMALT, G3ZCZEmail: [email protected]
Http://therightrequirement.com
Yes, but it is not what they tell
you it is
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
2
View INCOSE from the Perspectives Perimeter (Holistic Thinking Perspectives (HTP))
External1. Big picture2. Operational Internal3. Functional4. Structural Progressive5. Generic6. Continuum7. Temporal Remaining8. Quantitative9. Scientific
3
Where’s the value?1. There is no systems engineering in
INCOSE2. There is a lack of Systems Thinking3. INCOSE’s own internal projects do not
follow a systems engineering process4. The annual INCOSE international
symposia do not advance the state of the discipline
5. The INCOSE Working Groups don’t produce anything useful to the real world
4
Lack of Systems Engineering
1. Projects and products SE Handbook
Narrow ‘B’ paradigm, wide role-based process focus Certification
CSEP provides a very minimal narrow-focus qualification ESEP is better but non-INCOSE CEng is even better
Competency model Contains two fundamental flaws
Web site User unfriendly
Dial-in meeting software Does/did not work with Macs, only works/worked with Windows operating
systems BKCASE and GRCSE (Education)
Few if any users in 2015, outcome predicted in INCOSE IS 2009 Academic Forum
Other products Can’t think of anything useful in teaching systems engineering
2. Requested the systems engineering analysis supporting the selected choice
No idea what I was talking about
5
INCOSE’s …• Organization structure
Not suited to a professional society More suited towards a social club
• Version of systems engineering• Focuses on HKMF Layer 2 ‘B’ process paradigm (inherently flawed)• Ignores most of real world activities in HKMF Layer 3 and busy
trying to reinvent existing tools and techniques• MBSE is reinventing Operations Research and a return to the ‘A’ paradigm• Dichotomy on Systems of Systems and Complex systems
•INCOSE can’t handle them, real world can and does
• Membership churns• People join and many don’t renew
• Bylaws • Violated by officers whose actions are then supported by the Board
• Publications (symposia and journal)• Not worth reading
• Nothing much new of value• No qualifications for reviewers• No objective criteria for acceptance of manuscripts
6
Symposium peer-reviews• No objective selection criteria for peer-reviews• Paper rejection based on subjective criteria
I disagree with the author I don’t like the author I don't understand the content of the paper There are a few typographical errors Draft paper is incomplete
• Paper acceptance based on • Reviewer ignorance of prior publications• Paper’s grammar and style• Self-appointed committee’s perception of the diversity of
topics, geographical distribution of authors, and reviewer scores• Technical scores are overridden by personal agendas
• Produces• Reinvention of material already published • Narrow view of systems engineering• Nothing that makes an impact in the outside world• Little if any value in the published papers
7
Seattle Symposium 2015 Attendance
Some technical thought leaders absent Find no value in attending when employer does not
fund participation Opening keynote
Only took INCOSE 25 years to figure it out Technical program
Tackling problems solved between 1960 and 2000
Similar to previous years but worse Lack of systems thinking
Breakfast High fat and sugar Aging membership
Banquet Next slide
Etc.
8
Banquet (travel arrangements)
Getting to the banquet Boarding 600+ people one bus at a time 4-8 minutes boarding time per bus, 54 (max) people on a bus I waited about 20 minutes, and was half way in the queue
Shuttle bus wait post-banquet First bus scheduled for 60 minutes after the dinner ended No consideration for jet-lagged participants First bus left at 45 minutes
9
Leadership1. Standard volunteer organization distribution
Few motivated real workers Minority of membership Some seek status rather than do work Some are content to be seen but don’t contribute Peter principle in action
2. Mostly ignorant Technical knowledge, dealing with volunteers & other
cultures Nobody seems to be doing the IV&V, Q/C or mentoring
3. Mediocre (at least the academics)4. Focus on startups rather than accomplishments5. Most achievements seem to be ‘meetings took
place’
10
Working Groups1. Two types
Special Interest Groups Talk and talk and talk
Nothing wrong with this if members want it Working Groups
Holding meetings Producing useless products, e.g. -
How to write requirements (books of the 1970’s)[new] Competency model based on failed earlier NDIA attempt
2. Having fun3. Standard volunteer characteristics
Doing what the leader wants to do4. Are the Working Groups worth joining?
11
So, where’s the value?• After 25 years, no significant
contribution to the discipline of systems engineering
• International Club Organized for Systems Engineers Provides international social networking
opportunities Chapter meetings Special Interest Groups International Workshop International Symposium
12
Questions and comments