Systems Engineering Approach

I have been hearing about comments by a very small but very vocal group within NASA that we need to do away with our systems engineering policies and practices and our SE “V”-derived life cycle, complaining that they destroy innovation and are cumbersome and burdensome. I’ve been to this movie before. Now, before I go any farther, a caveat. Practices like agile development definitely have their place and can be very effective when applied appropriately. I’ve seen agile used on research and technology development projects where the stakes are low and the purpose—the success criteria—is learning. I’m all in on that, within NASA and outside. But much of what NASA does are highly complex integrated systems in which we have to get it right the first time. Once you launch, it’s gone. There are no do overs. For these, which constitute a significant portion of NASA’s portfolio, a rigorous SE-V approach is, in my experience, the best way to ensure the success of the mission. Systems Engineering is the most effective risk reduction I know for these kinds of missions. And that doesn’t mean a Chief Engineer simply pulls the policy off the shelf and applies it verbatim; the policy highly encourages tailoring and right-sizing to the project given its cost, complexity and risk tolerance. I’m fully aware that there are those out there who will fervently disagree with me, and that’s fine. SE, like anything else, needs to continuously evolve to meet the development needs of our ever increasing technologies and I fully endorse that evolution. But what I caution against is a rush to devalue proven practices because of the seduction (my word) of something seemingly popular at the moment. Popularism is not a driver for sound engineering, in my opinion. So, given the success I have seen of properly applied systems engineering, and the SE “V”, I’m sticking with it.

I thought systems engineers were just glorified project managers. ↳ I assumed they were unnecessary overhead. ↳ I believed they only slowed down the development process. ↳ I was convinced our team could handle everything without them. Boy, was I wrong. Let me take you back to the project that changed my mind... We were developing a cutting-edge automotive safety system. Deadlines were looming, budgets were tight, and interdepartmental conflicts were rife. It was a perfect storm of chaos. Our VP suggested bringing in a systems engineer. I rolled my eyes. "Great," I thought. "Another 'expert' to tell us how to do our jobs." But here's what actually happened: 1. The systems engineer mapped out the entire project ecosystem. 2. Cross-functional communication improved dramatically. 3. Potential risks were identified and mitigated before they became issues. 4. Integration challenges were solved proactively. The result? We delivered the project 6 weeks early and 12% under budget. But don't just take my word for it. Let's look at some hard data: - A study by the International Council on Systems Engineering found that projects with effective systems engineering are 50% more likely to meet their objectives. - The National Defense Industrial Association reported that high-performing projects using systems engineering had a 57% success rate, compared to just 15% for those with low systems engineering capability. - NASA credits systems engineering for reducing their project failure rate from 1 in 4 to less than 1 in 100. The numbers don't lie. Systems engineers are the unsung heroes of complex projects. They're the glue that holds interdisciplinary teams together, the visionaries who see the big picture, and the problem-solvers who tackle challenges before they become showstoppers. My skepticism has transformed into advocacy. Now, I wouldn't dream of starting a complex project without a systems engineer on board. Have you had a similar experience? Did a systems engineer save your project from disaster? Share your stories below. Let's start a conversation about the hidden superpowers of systems engineering in the automotive industry. #SystemsEngineering #AutomotiveInnovation #ProjectSuccess #EngineeringLeadership

Rethinking Requirements in Hardware Engineering Requirements management isn’t just about checklists—it’s the difference between effective collaboration and costly missteps. Here are once-unconventional approaches to requirements now embraced by top teams 1. From “Requirements” to “Design Criteria” Early systems engineers were part engineer, part lawyer. Someone had to create “techno-legal documents” to manage external contracts. These evolved into requirements. Many cultural issues stem from using requirements incorrectly–as a weapon rather than tool for collaboration. Not all requirements need to be treated as commandments. Reframing lower-level requirements as design criteria reduces resistance among engineers, empowering them to see requirements as flexible guidelines open to questioning and adjustment. This is what you want to inspire. 2. Culture of Ownership and Accountability Drives Agility A strong requirements culture is built when engineers “own” their work. Engineers must take responsibility for the requirements they design against, creating a culture of ownership, responsibility, and systems-mindedness. Assigning a clear, single-point owner for each requirement, even across domains, encourages each engineer to think critically about their area’s requirements, establishing ownership and trust in the process. Encouraging information flow between teams helps engineers see how their work impacts others, leads to reduced and stronger system integration. Requirements should be viewed as evolving assets, not static documents. You want engineers to push back on requirements and eliminate unnecessary systems rather than add more requirements, complexity, or systems. 3. Requirements as Conversations, Not Just Checklists Requirements aren’t just specs or checklists—they’re starting points for cross-functional discussions. Every problem is a systems problem, and to solve complex challenges, engineers must be systems thinkers first and domain experts second. In traditional settings, requirements stay isolated in documents. But when teams understand why requirements exist, where they come from, and who owns them—and engage in continuous dialogue—they blur the lines between domains and foster a systems-oriented mindset. This collaborative environment accelerates problem-solving, enabling engineers to align quickly and tackle challenges together. Instead of siloed requirements for each subsystem, drawing dotted lines and encouraging information flow between teams helps engineers understand how their work affects others. This cross-functional awareness leads to fewer misalignments and stronger system integration. When you see engineers make sacrifices in their own area to benefit the overall system, you know you are on the right track. There you have it. The full guide goes into specifics on how to start implementing these ideas in tools.

I was once responsible for coordinating the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for an airplane that, quite literally, wouldn’t get off the ground. At the time, I was working for the largest aerospace engineering company in the world—renowned for creating cutting-edge fighter jets. With such a wealth of experience and reputation, you’d think success in any airplane project would be guaranteed. Think again. This project fell victim to the same pitfalls that can derail any technical development effort. The fundamental forces of flight—lift, weight, thrust, and drag—are concepts most engineering students learn to calculate early on. So how did this project progress so far without an accurate assessment of the design's weight? As is often the case, the problem had as much to do with people and processes as with engineering. The team behind the project was an exceptionally innovative group of idea-makers, deeply trusted by their customer. Their relationship was so close, it seemed they had collectively fallen in love with the concept of the airplane. In their enthusiasm, they overlooked critical systems engineering principles like rigorous requirements validation, stakeholder alignment, and continuous integration of data into decision-making processes. One glaring oversight highlighted this flaw: they forgot to account for the weight of the cables in the initial design calculations. These cables alone were heavy enough to push the design beyond allowable weight limits, rendering the airplane incapable of flight. Physics doesn’t lie, and enthusiasm alone can’t overcome it. This experience underscored key systems engineering lessons that every project should adhere to: 🔍 Thorough Requirements Analysis: Ensure all aspects of the system, including seemingly minor components, are accounted for in design and requirements validation. 🔄 Iterative Design and Review: Conduct continuous, iterative evaluations of the design to catch issues early, rather than allowing them to compound over time. 🤝 Stakeholder Objectivity: Foster open communication and a healthy level of skepticism, even with trusted customers, to avoid "groupthink" or over-attachment to a concept. 📊 Emphasis on Quantitative Data: Balance creativity and innovation with grounded, quantitative assessments to ensure feasibility. Ultimately, this project served as a powerful reminder: no amount of innovation or trust can replace the need for disciplined systems engineering practices. #SystemsEngineering #EngineeringLessons #SystemsThinking #LessonsLearned #PhysicsMatters #LearnFromFailure 

How do we approach complex systems problems when there’s no one right solution? Too often, we rush to build a simulation based on a single model structure. But systems science reminds us that no model is ever fully right. Instead, we must rigorously explore multiple hypotheses, especially in complex problems where consensus is hard to reach. This new article exemplifies that mindset, tackling a pressing public health issue: understanding trends in stimulant-involved overdoses in the US. Rather than narrowing the focus to one model structure, our team developed six alternative dynamic hypotheses to explore different perspectives on the evolving patterns. (Even if the topic isn’t your focus, the approach itself is worth a look!) I’m especially proud of this work and consider it one of our most unique contributions in recent years. Huge congratulations to Zeynep Hasgul for her excellent initiative in starting and driving this thoughtful approach!

I love good systems engineering. It isn’t about solving individual problems — it’s about architecting coherence across complexity. At its core, systems engineering ensures that every subsystem, every interface, and every requirement aligns to achieve the mission. It’s not about chasing isolated performance metrics; it’s about designing solutions that thrive under real-world constraints. 1 / Defining the Mission. The starting point isn’t the technology—it’s the purpose. Systems engineering begins by asking: What is the system intended to accomplish? Every design choice flows from this mission, ensuring all components serve the larger objective. 2 / Managing Complexity. Modern systems—whether in aerospace, software, or manufacturing—operate at scales that defy intuition. Systems engineers impose order on this complexity by defining interfaces, ensuring compatibility, and anticipating cascading failures. It’s the discipline of integrating the parts into a functional whole. 3 / Designing for Resilience. Systems don’t operate in ideal environments; they face uncertainty, failures, and external disruptions. A good system works when conditions are perfect. A great system works when they’re not. Systems engineers design for these edge cases, ensuring robustness and adaptability. 4 / Iterating with Precision. The process is iterative, but not aimless. Each phase—requirements definition, design, validation—is rigorously structured. Feedback loops aren’t just encouraged; they’re built into the system. Systems engineering is the invisible backbone of modern innovation. It’s what makes rockets fly, networks connect, and critical infrastructure endure. Without it, complexity devolves into chaos. Thoughts????