Systems Engineering Professionals Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
**Bruce**\\
Here's the short description of my perspective on science and engineering

  * Science is a knowledge building discipline that investigates naturally existing/occurring phenomena.
  * Applied science uses principles of science to develop technology and techniques.
  * Engineering applies technology and techniques to solve 'problems-defined-by-people' (undesirable situations) or opportunities-for-people (not-yet-in-existence situation) .

I realize that engineering is often included in applied science, but I prefer to high-light engineering as a derivative of applied science such that there is a defined boundary on the two disciplines. I also respect that a "proclaimed engineer" can do science or applied science (actually any of the three can do the other two) BUT when they are doing science they are acting in the role of a scientist, doing applied science, acting in the role of an applied scientist or doing engineering, acting in the role of an engineer.\\
\\
**Sergey**\\
First of all, I agree with the Science (phenomena), Applied Science (general technical principles harnessing the phenomena), Engineering (purposeful solutions) stack. Each classical engineering discipline (Electrical, Mechanical, Chemical, Information) appropriates slices of the stack, others claim specific product domains (Aerospace, Defense, Marine, Petrochemical etc). As a job description, Systems Engineers integrate and manage other engineers to deliver anything a customer (internal or external) desires. This is the source of my claim that SyE is just plain old undifferentiated engineering, as they are responsible for the whole product, so if the SyE cannot or would not secure the services of expert mechanical engineers, they must step in and do the job themselves (did it myself a couple of times, as well as electrical engineering). If SyE want to be recognized as an Engineering DISCIPLINE in its own right, it must appropriate a slice of Science - Applied Science - Engineering stack not appropriated by other disciplines. What could it be? The psychological and social phenomena are up for grabs, and so the phenomena of emergence and complexity. As System Engineers deal with such issues on the daily basis, they can start studying or even contributing to the appropriate sciences.\\
\\
**Bruce**\\
#2: So engineering 'claims' a science or application - I can agree (may I steal that for my short description?). \\
#4:  is the point of contention, I'll get there in a bit as I want to go through our agreement first :slight_smile: . \\
#5: I agree with the concept although I think I'm open to the idea of a consolidating Engineering that specifically addresses using technologies and techniques  from multiple Applied Sciences (isn't that actually an aspect of Engineering anyway?) which would make Systems Engineering specifically a consolidating discipline rather than a 'monolithic' one. They would, however, have to embrace it.
#6: We can work on once we understand #5.\\
\\
#3: So, when used as a job description, SyE is a management role. That appears to be correctly derived from observation. To me that implies that SyE (as a job description) is just "plain old management", although with a technical expectation(and this appears to be our first point of contention). Our second one is: If there happens to be a SyE with the appropriate background to address a specific discipline problem, then that SyE is acting in the role of an "X" engineer and NOT as a SyE (for that activity). If a SyE MUST be able to step into any "X" engineering role than I posit that there are actually only 10's of SyEs vs. the number proclaimed by  INCOSE.\\
\\
**Sergey**\\
Well, if the job position is named Systems Engineer, what people in this position do will certainly color the perception of anything else bearing similar names. Sarah Sheard has written about 12 roles of Systems Engineer, with the 12th role being "whatever you want or asked to do". There is no need to map jobs with disciplines, this doesn't work with any discipline, or even a body of knowledge. Really, arguing about SyE JOBS doesn't worth the time. That leaves SyE as a discipline, but this doesn't interest me too. Let's say, in some parallel universe Engineering Discipline X appropriates the phenomena of integration, emergence and complexity as its scientific basis. How would this discipline look like? What are its technical principles (applied science)? Does the Discipline X bear any resemblance to SyE? Doesn't matter at this point.\\
\\
**Bruce**\\
I agree with your observation concerning job titles, but not your point or conclusion. I interpreted Sheard's paper as an observation of the industry back in the 1990's but not a proposal/recommendation. The idea that a Profession is undefined is inconsistent with other professions. While what was considered a doctor in the 18th/19th century was a barber with a saw doesn't indicate how the profession is considered now. And while an employer enjoy the ability to 'force' and employee to perform tasks of their choosing, the employer does not define the profession. On to the main point.\\
\\
Integration is not a phenomenon but an activity. Complexity is a metric. Emergence is likely a phenomenon but I was unaware of actual scientific principles. A search indicates that there is work in this area (for example:  [Amazon.com: Hierarchical Emergent Ontology and the Universal Principle of Emergence: 9783030981471: Havlík, Vladimír: Books](https://www.amazon.com/Hierarchical-Emergent-Universal-Principle-Emergence/dp/3030981479) and [The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion: Clayton, Philip, Davies, Paul: 9780199544318: Amazon.com: Books](https://www.amazon.com/Re-Emergence-Emergence-Emergentist-Hypothesis-Religion/dp/019954431X)  ) that I will need to investigate. If you have any more affordable references, I'll appreciate them. \\
\\
I like your question that I paraphrase as: "If there is an engineering discipline that is based on the principle of emergence and employs integration of elements (components, assemblies, subsystems, systems) using complexity as a metric to differentiate the basis for emergence, what does this discipline deliver and what methods, tools, technology  and other principles are employed?"
\\
**Sergey**\\
Your summary question is very clear, thank you for the refinement. I like the option of posting the question, and I hope that will trigger a fruitful discussion. I would really like to divert attention from the image and identity of Systems Engineering as a job, profession, or discipline (those are different things, and may be a topic for another discussion) to the theory (phenomena, principles, and methods).