Talk:Scope of the SEBoK

SE scope - "understand" versus "do"

Hillary S:

I like this 3-part Venn diagram.

We need more finesse on the relevance of natural systems to SE. While we do not "engineer" natural systems, the delivery of the intended benefit of an engineered system depends on its successful integration with natural (particularly ecological) and social systems. Also, as we attempt to engineer increasingly complex open interconnected systems, our understanding of how such systems will behave - and therefore how to design them so they are likely to be successful - can be improved by an understanding of how complex natural and social systems behave: there are some characteristics and systemic behaviours (and therefore limitations and opportunities) that ALL systems have in common, whether natural, social, engineered or all three. If SE's are to be responsible for successful system outcomes, they need to understand these universal system characteristics, behaviours and pathologies.

Scott J:

Some important points need to be made in this section:

(1) It should not be inferred that just because many disciplines are mentioned in the SEBoK (for example, safety, reliability, etc) that does not mean that these disciplines are "part" of systems engineering. All it means is that the system methodology should be applied to those disciplines as well as any other part of the design.

2) The scope of the SEBoK is larget than many previous refences for systems engineering. Previous referemces often focus solely on product systems that are ordered and non-complex. The increased scope of the SEBoK also includes Emterprise Systems Engineering and Service Systems Engineering. In addition, the SEBoK is not limited to ordered systems. It also discusses structural [complexity (glossary)) and non-deterministic systems. Another example of the expanded scope of Systems Engineering is the discussion of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM).

Tom Hilburn

1. Figure 1 - The Real Number System (numeric symbols, axioms, theorems) is not a Natural System - it is a man-made system used to model the real world.

2. Suggest deleting the sentence "SE can enable the realization of successful systems, but cannot ..." - sounds a little defensive.

3. Figure 2 does not include some topics (like schedule, cost, and risk monitroing) in SE, but these topics are disussed later in Part 3.

4. Suggest the definition of SE include a link to Systems engineering (SE) (glossary) and be consitent with it.

Judith D:

I also like the venn diagram, but in line with Hillary's comment above with natural systems, I thinbk we need to finesse the discussion of social systms. It may be worth noting, after the 'socio-technical' materials in the SoS section, that understanding the social and organizational context where a new system or SoS is employed is critical to the engingineer of that system. I believe the discussion here is essential consistent with the SoS dsections.

However, this doenot seem to be consistent with the 'Enterprise Systems' section (another section I am reviewing'. There it says that Enterprise Engineering is applying engineering to the enterprise (defined as an organization) which is in fact a social system. This is not consistent with this discussion. Something needs to be done to reconcile this.

Garry Roedler:

The following are additional things to consider for this topic: 1. Add links to the reference parts of the SEBoK in the discussion. 2. The INCOSE SE Handbook is listed as a citation. Should it also be a Primary Reference? 3. Consider adding a short discussion regarding the scope with respect to Product, Service, and Enterprise systems. Other than this and the discussion of others regarding the linkages to non-engineered systems, the content is fairly solid. 4. Add links to glossary terms for Engineered Systems, Natural Systems, and Social Systems, as well as any other key terms. Currently, there are no links to any glossary terms.