2007 INCOSE International Symposium presentatio

Rhodes, Donna H.

Twomey Lamb, Caroline

DSpace@MIT

INCOSE 2007 Systems Engineering: Key to Intelligent EnterprisesJune 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb ©Standardized Process as a Tool for Higher Level Systems ThinkingPresenting Author:Caroline Twomey LambDoctoral Research AssistantMassachusetts Institute of Technologycmtwomey@mit.eduResearch Advisor:Donna H. RhodesSenior LecturerMassachusetts Institute of Technologyrhodes@mit.eduINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 2 of 14Agenda• Research Question• Motivation• Objectives• Prior Art• Constructs and Methods• Pilot Interview Results• Moving ForwardINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 3 of 14Research QuestionCultureStandardizedProcessCollaborativeSystems ThinkingHow do standard processes and culture support the development of systems thinking with engineering teams?INCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 4 of 14Why process and culture?• People, process and technology are the three components to be addressed when improving SE practices. (Jansma and  Jones, 2006)• Culture, structure and standard process are important factors inteam performance.  (Lee, et.al., 2003)• Recent emphasis on process maturity.• Using well-documented and successful processes does not guarantee success.  (Spear and Bowen, 1999; Dougherty, 1990)• Address two of identified contributors to development of systemsthinking in individual engineers (Davidz, 2006)– Specific individual traits– Supportive environment– Experiential learningWe can lick gravity, but the paperwork's a bit tougher.-Werhner von BraunINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 5 of 14Motivation• Aging demographics within engineering– Average age of engineer within US = 45 (NA Report, 2006)– Average age of engineer at NASA = 49 (Lemos, 2006)• Increasing system complexity and development time – 48 military aircraft program starts in 1950’s; only 7 in 1990’s (Murman et.al., 2002)– Similar trends in commercial airframes, manned spaceflight programs and planetary probes.  • Systems thinking an identified skill shortage within aerospace industry• Prior systems thinking research at level of individual engineer (Davidz, 2006; Frank, 2000)• Research on team-based design thinking focuses on undergraduate engineering students• Literature likening people and process as social and technical components of the design system (Pajerek, 2000)INCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 6 of 14Research Objectives• Operationalize the construct of collaborative systems thinking– Pilot interviews with experts– Literature on systems thinking– Literature on design thinking in teams• Identify enablers and barriers to collaborative systems thinking– Focus on culture and process• Contribute to practice by relating “best practices”to cultural contextsINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 7 of 14Prior Art• Systems Thinking as the Fifth Discipline (Senge, 2006; Ackoff, 2004)– Emphasis on holistic thinking as way to elucidate patterns– Based on field of systems dynamics• Systems Thinking within Engineering– Framework for seeing patterns and interrelationships; for seeing the whole (Frank, 1999)– The “analysis, synthesis, and understanding of interconnections, interactions, and interdependencies” (Davidz, 2006)• Design Thinking (Dym, et.al., 2005)– Design is a social process– Successful teams cycle between divergent and convergent stages• SE Process (Sheard, 2000; Pajerek, 2000)– Should reflect the way an organization works– Focus on interactions among individuals and teams– Should not be developed without considering the individual and team usersINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 8 of 14Research Constructs• Team-Based Systems Thinking– Emphasis on interconnections, interactions and interdependences within technical, social and temporal spheres (Davidz, 2006)– Tendency to communicate in abstractions, using intuition to assign meaning rather than relying solely on sensory inputs (O’Brien, et.al. 1998) – Concept of cycling between divergent and convergent thinking (Dym, et.al., 2005)– Ability to leverage the various “languages of design” (Dym, et.al., 2005)– Termed Collaborative Systems Thinking to address discriminant validity• Culture– Behavioral norms, espoused beliefs, underlying assumptions (Schien, 2004)– Social structure• Standard Process– Documented sequences of tasks executed during engineering design– Interested in design stage of lifecycle• Teams (Hackman, 2002)– Common goals– Collective action– Clear membershipINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 9 of 14Research Framework• Grounded theory research– Data collection using surveys, interviews, and primary documentation– Validation addressed in research design-5 types of validity (Valerdi and Davidz, 2007)• Levels of Analysis– Teams of engineers– Individual team members• Variables of interest– Team maturity– Stage in design process– Team composition• Research tool goals– Team norms– Level of process compliance– Some amount of interaction data– Measure systems thinking characteristics present in team interactionsTeam Norms Documented Tasks/MethodsCulture Standardized ProcessEspoused BeliefsVision StatementUnderlying AssumptionsRewards and RecognitionsSocial NetworksProcess Flow Maps, Org-ChartsINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 10 of 14Research MethodsLiterature SearchSecondary Case Study Analysis Pilot InterviewsTheory SynthesisData AnalysisTheory Generation and Idea SharingCoding, statistical analysis, MS ExcelCase StudiesData SourcesPrimary DocumentationInterviewsObservations SurveysDepthBreadthCase aCase dCase ?Case ßCase eCase ?Experimental DesignIdentify potential case opportunitiesIdentify potential case opportunitiesWork with point of contactWork with point of contactCollect survey dataCollect survey dataInterview engineering team membersInterview engineering team membersObserve team membersObserve team membersSupporting CasesOne-Time DataCollectionDepth CaseLongitudinal DataCollectionINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 11 of 14Pilot Interview Results• Collaborative systems thinking needs product orientation– Teams produce products– Product, not process is end-goal• Divergent opinions on team composition– Teams of systems thinkers– Teams led by systems thinkers– Team of non-systems thinkers expressing systems thinking properties through interactions• Agreement that culture and process present both enablers and barriers to collaborative systems thinkingINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 12 of 14Pilot Interview Results, contTeam culture considerations• Enablers– Willingness to ask and answer questions– Ability to engage in divergent and convergent thinking– Identifying with product• Barriers– Team polarization– Misalignment between team goals and individual reward systems– Identifying with discipline– Failure to consider social dimensions when forming teams– Resistance to changeINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 13 of 14Moving Forward • Finalize case study design– Finalize case study tools– Conceptualizing ways to analyze and communicate results• Identify cases– This is where your help is appreciated– Collect and analyze data• Return next year with resultsINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 14 of 14Selected References• Davidz, Heidi, Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the Development of Senior Systems Engineers, Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2006. • Dougherty, Deborah, “Understanding New Markets for New Products”, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 1990, pp 59-78.• Dym, C., et.al., “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning”, Journal of Engineering Education, 94:1, 2005, pp 103-120• Frank, M., “Engineering Systems Thinking and Systems Thinking”, Systems Engineering, 3:3, 2000, pp 163-168• Jansma, P.A. and Jones, R.M., Advancing the Practice of Systems Engineering at JPL, Proceeding of Aerospace 2006, March 2006.• Lee, M., et.al., The Conceptual Framework of Factors Affecting Shared Mental Models• Lemos, Robert, “NASA Fights Premature Graying”, Wired News, http://www.wired.com/news/technology/space/0,71822-0.html, (Accessed December, 2006).• Murman, E., et.al., Lean Enterprise Value. Palgrave, New York, NY, 2002.• National Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for  a Brighter Economic Future, 2005.• Pajerek, L., “Process and Organizations as Systems: When the Processors are People, Not Pentiums”, Systems Engineering, 3:2, pp 103-111• Sheard, S., et.al., Overcoming Barriers to Systems Engineering Process Improvements, Systems Engieering, 3:2, 2000, pp 59-67• Spear, S. and Bowen, H.K., “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System”, Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, 1999, pp 96-106.INCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 15 of 14Backup SlidesINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 16 of 14Construct DefinitionsINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 17 of 14Standardized ProcessProcess: a logical sequence of tasks performed to achieve some objective.  Process defines what is to be done withoutspecifying how it is to be done. --James Martin, 1997• Codify best practices and facilitate effective coordination and communication.• Drive interactions within teams and between teams• Reduce ambiguity and unpredictability (Schein, 2004)• TPS based on strict standardization • Process alone insufficient to guarantee success in product development (Dougherty, 1990; Spear and Bowen, 1999)INCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 18 of 14CultureCulture: a dynamic phenomenon and a set of structures, routines, and norms that guide and constraint behavior.--Edgar Schein, 2004• Components of culture– Norms of behavior– Espoused beliefs– Basic underlying assumptions• Effective team norms do not evolve naturally and must be fostered (Hackman, 2002)• Team norms constitute unwritten set of standardized processes• Culture a differentiator between successful and unsuccessful organizationsINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 19 of 14Systems ThinkingSystems thinking: the analysis, synthesis, and understanding of interconnections, interactions, and interdependencies that are technical, social, temporal, and multi-level.--Heidi Davidz, 2006• Experientially developed skill that facilitates system design (Davidz, 2006)– Improved ability do handle complexity– Saves development time– May promote process optimization• Evaluating systems thinking of group more important than individual– Teams design systems– Teams responsible for managing and maintaining systemsINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 20 of 14Collaborative Systems ThinkingCollaborative systems thinking: systems thinking as a property of an engineering team or organization. • Term coined to refer to higher-level systems thinking in engineering contexts• Systems thinking likely linked to context– Necessitates looking at team and organizational levels• How might collaborative systems thinking differ from individual systems thinking?– Teams and organizations produce products– Borrow ideas of value and efficiency from lean thinkingINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 21 of 14Secondary Case Study Analysis• Based on 12+ cases published through AIAA, IEEE and LAI looking at ‘non-technical’ aspects of complex product designShared Mental ModelsOutside ReviewsProductManagement / OrganizationGood ProcessesTeam EmpowermentReal InvolvementDebate and DiscussionCollaborative Systems Thinking*Knowledge Sharing* Successful, multidisciplinary teams demonstrating meaningful exchanges of information were used a proxy for CSTSuccessful teams are intrinsically rewarding—the loop is reinforcingINCOSE 2007  Systems Engineering:  Key to Intelligent Enterprises June 27, 2007 Caroline Twomey Lamb © Slide 22 of 14Secondary Case Study Analysis• General Observations– Systems thinking enables change– Team design important (selecting correct people)– Richness and completeness of communication important– Must allow and expect participation from all team members (real involvement)– Team membership improves knowledge and skill of participants– Communication must serve the problem– Well designed processes empower the user• ENABLERS– LEADERSHIP– Identification with product enabler– Empowerment—freedom and ability to make meaningful decisions– Real and meaningful responsibility– Separating ideas from individuals—allowing for debate and critical analysis– Articulating team norms (beyond SP)• BARRIERS– Complexity of product is a barrier to change in methods– Identification with function is barrier– Hero-based culture a barrier– Visionary leader encapsulating tacit knowledge of project– Failure to align team involvement with career advancement

Standardized Process as a Tool for Higher Level Systems Thinking

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/84458/1/CPS_070624_Lamb%2cRhodes_INCOSE.pdf

Standardized Process as a Tool for Higher Level Systems Thinking

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DSpace@MIT