Developing systems thinking in a Project-Based Learning environment

As science and engineering projects are becoming increasingly more complex, sophisticated, comprehensive and multidisciplinary, there is a growing need for systems thinking skills to ensure successful project management. Systems thinking plays a major role in the initiation, effective management, and in facilitating inter-organizational tasks. This research assesses the capacity for engineering systems thinking and its contribution in carrying out a multidisciplinary project. The research also reviews the cognitive process through which systems thinking skill is acquired. The study focused on a group of students who have completed their senior design projects in high-tech industry, while their plans were being integrated into existing larger projects in the respective industrial sites. The systems thinking skill of the students was examined according to a questionnaire for assessing the Capacity for Engineering Systems Thinking (CEST). Statistical analysis shows significant differences in the students capacity for systems thinking at the beginning and end of the work (p<0.001). This research demonstrates that systems thinking skills can be improved through awareness and involvement in multidisciplinary projects

The T-shape dilemma in the industrial engineering and management

Purpose: This paper concerns the undergraduate “Industrial Engineering and Management” curriculum. The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which there is in-depth coverage of teaching/learning in the combined field of industrial engineering and management, as opposed to breadth in multidisciplinary teaching/learning in this field (the T-shaped dilemma). In line with this aim, the following research question was derived: With respect to the breadth of multidisciplinary teaching and the depth of teaching in industrial engineering and management, what is the desired situation as opposed to the actual situation? Design/methodology/approach: To examine the T-shaped dilemma, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with senior-level managers in industry, and with leading academics in the fields of industrial engineering and management. The interviewees were asked questions regarding the planning and design of the curriculum in these fields. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by ascribing categories to the data, and presenting the categories with the highest frequencies in all of the interviews. Findings and originality/value: One of the most significant results was the considerable variability between the answers of senior-level managers in industry and those of the academics. Whereas individuals in the business field (senior-level managers) place great importance on focusing on the management/business aspect and the acquisition of multidisciplinary knowledge, academics emphasize the importance of understanding the theories and rationale behind the material studied, studying the basic principles and thus acquiring a strong theoretical foundation, the implementation of which is then expressed in diverse applications. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included 16 in-depth interviews. In order to increase the external validity of this research, more interviews should be executed. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in terms of the topic and analytic processes.Peer Reviewe

Risk Management for Defense SoS in a Complex, Dynamic Environment

Identifying and assessing risk is one of the most important processes in managing complex systems and requires careful consideration. The need for an effective, efficient approach to risk management is considerably more important for defense industries, because they are exposed to risk in the early stages of development. This paper uses heterogeneity and homogeneity analysis between risk factors with Cochran’s Q test and multidimensional scaling in order to present the complexity of the risk factors relevant to defense systems of systems (SoSs), and it proposes a methodology for identifying, analyzing, and monitoring the risks that they face. Findings from an in-depth analysis of 46 classified defense SoSs shows a need to focus on three main risks faced by defense projects: insufficient human resources, changes in the original specifications, and lack of other (nonhuman) resources. The paper also presents some recommendations for minimizing risk factors in defense SoSs

Examining Criteria for Choosing Subcontractors for Complex and Multi-Systems Projects

Numerous companies from diverse industries use subcontracting in their operations. In complex projects, subcontractor selection is a crucial managerial decision that significantly impacts project success. The current mixed-methodology study examines that criteria that high-tech defense and civilian companies use to choose optimal subcontractors. The qualitative aspect derives from semi-structured interviews; the quantitative findings were obtained using three statistical methods: Friedman&rsquo;s two-way analysis of variance by ranks, hierarchical cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling (PROXSCAL). Data analysis yielded twelve leading criteria for subcontractor selection, categorized into four clusters of varying strength. The three highest-rated criteria were significantly stronger than the others and included system reliability and quality, level of service, and flexibility to change. The lowest rated criteria were leadership and innovation, and number of systems supplied in the past. The findings provide practical insights applicable to subcontractor selection and expand our knowledge of complex project management

Examining Criteria for Choosing Subcontractors for Complex and Multi-Systems Projects

Numerous companies from diverse industries use subcontracting in their operations. In complex projects, subcontractor selection is a crucial managerial decision that significantly impacts project success. The current mixed-methodology study examines that criteria that high-tech defense and civilian companies use to choose optimal subcontractors. The qualitative aspect derives from semi-structured interviews; the quantitative findings were obtained using three statistical methods: Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance by ranks, hierarchical cluster analysis, and multidimensional scaling (PROXSCAL). Data analysis yielded twelve leading criteria for subcontractor selection, categorized into four clusters of varying strength. The three highest-rated criteria were significantly stronger than the others and included system reliability and quality, level of service, and flexibility to change. The lowest rated criteria were leadership and innovation, and number of systems supplied in the past. The findings provide practical insights applicable to subcontractor selection and expand our knowledge of complex project management

The T-shape dilemma in the industrial engineering and management

Purpose: This paper concerns the undergraduate “Industrial Engineering and Management” curriculum. The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which there is in-depth coverage of teaching/learning in the combined field of industrial engineering and management, as opposed to breadth in multidisciplinary teaching/learning in this field (the T-shaped dilemma). In line with this aim, the following research question was derived: With respect to the breadth of multidisciplinary teaching and the depth of teaching in industrial engineering and management, what is the desired situation as opposed to the actual situation? Design/methodology/approach: To examine the T-shaped dilemma, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with senior-level managers in industry, and with leading academics in the fields of industrial engineering and management. The interviewees were asked questions regarding the planning and design of the curriculum in these fields. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by ascribing categories to the data, and presenting the categories with the highest frequencies in all of the interviews. Findings and originality/value: One of the most significant results was the considerable variability between the answers of senior-level managers in industry and those of the academics. Whereas individuals in the business field (senior-level managers) place great importance on focusing on the management/business aspect and the acquisition of multidisciplinary knowledge, academics emphasize the importance of understanding the theories and rationale behind the material studied, studying the basic principles and thus acquiring a strong theoretical foundation, the implementation of which is then expressed in diverse applications. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included 16 in-depth interviews. In order to increase the external validity of this research, more interviews should be executed. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in terms of the topic and analytic processes.Peer Reviewe

FOUR LAYERS APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING A TOOL FOR ASSESSING SYSTEMS THINKING

To perform successfully systems engineering tasks, systems engineers need a systems view, in other words, a high capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST). A tool for assessing systems thinking of engineers, once validated, may be used for systems engineering workforce selection and development, developing systems engineering curriculum, education, and training programs, as well as a standard tool for assessing systems engineers' competencies. Since there is no known way of directly 'measuring' systems thinking in general and CEST in particular, an indirect method is needed. This paper proposes an idea for developing an indirect means, i.e. a questionnaire for assessing the CEST of systems engineers. The idea is composed of four logic layers

Can We Train Management Students to be Systems Thinkers- Additional Results

Systems-thinking, a holistic approach that puts the study of wholes before that of parts, is an efficient way of dealing with real-world situations. By emphasizing the interrelationships between the system's components rather than the components themselves, systems thinking allows us to increase our personal and professional effectiveness, and transform our organizations. Specifically, systems thinkers can conceptually analyze the system without knowing all the details, recognizing the forest through the trees. They can see beyond the surface to the deeper patterns that are responsible for creating behavior. The current study deals with the development of systems thinking among students and graduates of technology management. The goals of the study are to identify the factors that influence the development of systems thinking and to find ways to encourage this development. We used a variety of research tools:  A questionnaire for assessing the capacity for systems thinking, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality type test and supervisor evaluations.  In conclusion, the current study findings show that graduates with certain personality traits can gradually acquire or improve their capacity for systems thinking by receiving appropriate training and through a wide range of work experience, and by holding different job positions over time. Having a broad range of professional experience and holding different job positions can help graduates gain knowledge and become familiar with diverse systems and technologies

The T-shape dilemma in the industrial engineering and management

Purpose: This paper concerns the undergraduate “Industrial Engineering and Management” curriculum. The purpose of the research was to examine the extent to which there is in-depth coverage of teaching/learning in the combined field of industrial engineering and management, as opposed to breadth in multidisciplinary teaching/learning in this field (the T-shaped dilemma). In line with this aim, the following research question was derived: With respect to the breadth of multidisciplinary teaching and the depth of teaching in industrial engineering and management, what is the desired situation as opposed to the actual situation? Design/methodology/approach: To examine the T-shaped dilemma, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with senior-level managers in industry, and with leading academics in the fields of industrial engineering and management. The interviewees were asked questions regarding the planning and design of the curriculum in these fields. The analysis of the interviews was carried out by ascribing categories to the data, and presenting the categories with the highest frequencies in all of the interviews. Findings and originality/value: One of the most significant results was the considerable variability between the answers of senior-level managers in industry and those of the academics. Whereas individuals in the business field (senior-level managers) place great importance on focusing on the management/business aspect and the acquisition of multidisciplinary knowledge, academics emphasize the importance of understanding the theories and rationale behind the material studied, studying the basic principles and thus acquiring a strong theoretical foundation, the implementation of which is then expressed in diverse applications. Research limitations/implications: Owing to time constraints, the research only included 16 in-depth interviews. In order to increase the external validity of this research, more interviews should be executed. Originality/value: The framework of this research is unique in terms of the topic and analytic processes