presentation from september 12, 2006 dinner meeting
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
1/75
Enabling Systems Thinking toEnabling Systems Thinking to
Accelerate the Development ofAccelerate the Development of
Senior Systems EngineersSenior Systems Engineers
INCOSE PresentationINCOSE PresentationSeptember 2006September 2006
Heidi L. DavidzHeidi L. Davidz
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
2/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 2
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
* Introduction *MethodsResults
Implications
Conclusion
Acknowledgment ofAcknowledgment of
Research SupportResearch Support Doctoral Committee
Professor Deborah Nightingale (chair)
Professor Tom Allen Dr. Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld
Dr. Eric Rebentisch
Dr. Donna Rhodes
Research Sponsored by the Lean AerospaceInitiative (LAI) Additional Reader: Professor John Carroll
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
3/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 3
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
AgendaAgenda IntroductionIntroduction
Research MethodsResearch Methods ResultsResults
ImplicationsImplications
ConclusionConclusion Conclusions on My ResearchConclusions on My Research
Reflections on Enabling SE Research RigorReflections on Enabling SE Research Rigor
* Introduction *MethodsResults
Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
4/75
Enabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate theEnabling Systems Thinking to Accelerate the
Development of Senior Systems EngineersDevelopment of Senior Systems EngineersHeidi DavidzHeidi Davidz
Advisor: Professor Deborah NightingaleAdvisor: Professor Deborah Nightingale
Results
Even though systems thinking definitionsdiverge, there is consensus on primarymechanisms that enable or obstructsystems thinking development in engineers
Enabling mechanisms include experientiallearning, certain individual characteristics,supportive environment
Developed a framework and conceptualillustration for systems thinking
Implications
Identified implications for government,industry, and academia
Highlighted inconsistencies between policy& effective mechanisms
Need to evolve intervention maturity Government should set enabling policy Industry should utilize primary mechanisms Academia should continue studying how
systems thinking actually develops
Methods
1. Literature Review2. Pilot Interviews3. Field Study with Interviews & Surveys
205 Participants, 10 Companies Expert Panelists, Sr. Systems Engineers,
Sr. Technical Specialists & Jr. Systems
Engineers4. Blue Chip Interviews5. Data Analysis6. Theory Synthesis
Motivation
Increasing interest in systems thinking
Data needed on systems thinking development
InnatetraitsJob
rotations
Systemswork roles
Training
classes
What are themechanisms thatdevelop systems
thinking in engineers?
Universityprograms
Exploratory
Inductive
How do senior systemsengineers develop?
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
5/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 5
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
MotivationMotivation
Increasing complexity of engineering systems and theIncreasing complexity of engineering systems and the
corresponding need for systems professionalscorresponding need for systems professionals
Importance of systems engineering, demonstrated inImportance of systems engineering, demonstrated in
policy mandatespolicy mandates
Importance of systems engineering workforce issues,Importance of systems engineering workforce issues,
also shown in policy documentsalso shown in policy documents
DataData needed on systems thinking development inneeded on systems thinking development in
order to know which methods are most effective inorder to know which methods are most effective indeveloping systems thinking in engineersdeveloping systems thinking in engineers
* Introduction *MethodsResults
Implications
Conclusion
Need for DATA on Systems Thinking Development
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
6/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 6
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Key ResearchKey Research
QuestionsQuestions1.1. What are enablers, barriers, andWhat are enablers, barriers, and
precursors to the development ofprecursors to the development of
systems thinking in engineers?systems thinking in engineers?
2.2. How do senior systems engineersHow do senior systems engineers
develop?develop?
3.3. What are the mechanisms that developWhat are the mechanisms that developsystems thinking in engineers?systems thinking in engineers?
* Introduction *MethodsResults
Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
7/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 7
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Broad literature found on systems thinkingBroad literature found on systems thinking
Lack of a central, ongoing discussionLack of a central, ongoing discussion
Systems thinking literature found in disparate fields andSystems thinking literature found in disparate fields and
journals, from systems dynamics to systems engineeringjournals, from systems dynamics to systems engineering
to general philosophyto general philosophy
Very limited literature on systems thinkingVery limited literature on systems thinking
development and mechanisms for developmentdevelopment and mechanisms for development
Heavy dependence on heuristics of how systemsHeavy dependence on heuristics of how systemsthinking developsthinking develops
Introduction
* Methods *Results
Implications
Conclusion
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
and Existing Theoryand Existing Theory
Scant Literature on Systems Thinking Development
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
8/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 8
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ResearchResearch
MethodsMethodsLiterature
review
Inductive
Exploratory
PilotInterviews
(N=12)
AdditionalInterviewswith Blue
ChipProvenExperts(N=2)
(c) ExpertPanelists(N=37)
Completedsurvey andinterview
Identifiedsubjects for3 follow-ongroups
(d) Follow-On Subjects Completed interview
Completed survey
(a) Contacted
Company 10 companies
participated
Primarily U.S.aerospace companies
(b) Point-of-contactIdentified POC to workwith others to identify
Expert Panelists
1. SeniorSystemsEngineers(N=62)
2. SeniorTechnicalSpecialists(N=53)
3. JuniorSystemsEngineers(N=53)
(Total of 205 interviews and 188 surveys)
FieldStudy
Data AnalysisUsing QSR N6,SPSS,MS Excel
TheorySynthesis
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
9/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 9
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Company Site System Context
The Aerospace
Corporation
Systems Engineering in Chantilly, VA &
Los Angeles, CA
FFRDC - Global Positioning System (GPS), Air Force Satellite
Communications (AFSATCOM) System, etc.1
BMW Systems Architects at BMW Group inMunich, Germany
Commercial - Manufacturer of premium automobiles and
motorcycles2
Boeing Boeing Commercial Airplanes,Engineering Liaison group in Renton
and Everett, Washington
Contractor - Commercial jetliner manufacturer3
Booz Allen
Hamilton
Systems group, multiple locations,
referred by a systems partner at
headquarters in McLean, VA
Consultant - Strategic management and technology consulting
firm to industry and government4
General
Dynamics
Sites 1 & 2
SE at General Dynamics Advanced
Information Systems in Bloomington,
MN and in Pittsfield, MA
Contractor - Provider of transformational mission solutions in
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance (i.e. Future Combat Systems)5
MITRE Systems Engineering in Bedford, MA &
McLean, VA
FFRDC - Global Information Grid, IRS enterprise modernization
program, etc.6
Northrop
Grumman
Airborne Ground Surveillance & Battle
Management Systems, Integrated
Systems, Melbourne, FL, SE
Contractor - E-8C Joint Surveillance Targeting Attack Radar
System (Joint STARS), Cyber Warfare Integration Network
(CWIN), etc.7
Pratt &
Whitney
SE in East Hartford, CT Contractor - Design, manufacture, and support of turbine engines8
Sikorsky SE in Stratford, CT Contractor - Design and build advanced helicopters for
commercial, industrial and military use9
Participating CompaniesParticipating Companies
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
10/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 10
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Coding in QSR N6Coding in QSR N6
Q: How to make sense of 205 interviews each with a 4Q: How to make sense of 205 interviews each with a 4--55page transcript?page transcript?
A: Use content analysis to categorize key ideas andA: Use content analysis to categorize key ideas and
thoughts from the interviewthoughts from the interview This categorization process is called codingThis categorization process is called coding
The resulting categories are called nodesThe resulting categories are called nodes
The nodes were recorded and organized in aThe nodes were recorded and organized in a
qualitative data management tool calledQ
SR N6qualitative data management tool calledQ
SR N6
1010
Nodes were organized in hierarchies, with Level 2Nodes were organized in hierarchies, with Level 2as a subas a sub--node of Level 1node of Level 1
Content Analysis Performed Using QSR N6 Tool
Introduction
* Methods *Results
Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
11/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 11
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Introduction
* Methods *Results
Implications
Conclusion
Content Analysis:Content Analysis:
From Raw Data to NodesFrom Raw Data to NodesQuestion Response
Node Hierarchies Organize Conceptual Patterns
ScreenShot
Coded As:Coded As: Level 1 NodeLevel 1 Node -- ExperienceExperience
Level 2 NodeLevel 2 Node -- Job/opportunity to seeJob/opportunity to see
systems viewsystems view
Individual lines of ~1000 pages ofIndividual lines of ~1000 pages of
transcripts coded in this waytranscripts coded in this way
Yield of 908 nodesYield of 908 nodes
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
12/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 12
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
AdditionalAdditional
Data AnalysisData Analysis Interview data exported fromQSR N6 to MS ExcelInterview data exported fromQSR N6 to MS Excel
to determine top interview responsesto determine top interview responses
Interview data exported fromQSR N6 to SPSS toInterview data exported fromQSR N6 to SPSS to
run statistical testsrun statistical tests Results reported at both Level 1 and Level 2 ofResults reported at both Level 1 and Level 2 of
the node hierarchy to address aggregation biasthe node hierarchy to address aggregation bias
SPSS used to analyze survey dataSPSS used to analyze survey data
Manual content analysis performed on pilotManual content analysis performed on pilotinterviews and blue chip interviewsinterviews and blue chip interviews
UtilizedMultiple Data Exploration Methods
Introduction
* Methods *Results
Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
13/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 13
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
UnderlyingUnderlying
Research ResultResearch Result
Even though systems
thinking definitions diverge,there is consensus on primary
mechanisms that enable orobstruct systems thinking
development in engineers
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
14/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 14
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Consensus on PrimaryConsensus on Primary
Enabling MechanismsEnabling Mechanisms There is consensus on primaryThere is consensus on primary
mechanisms that enable systemsmechanisms that enable systems
thinking development in engineersthinking development in engineers1.1. Experiential learningExperiential learning
2.2. Individual characteristicsIndividual characteristics
3.3. Supportive environmentSupportive environment
Data Show Consensus
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
15/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 15
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Q: How can people agree on mechanisms that enableQ: How can people agree on mechanisms that enable
systems thinking when their definitions of systemssystems thinking when their definitions of systems
thinking do not agree?thinking do not agree?
A: Though the articulation of the systems thinkingA: Though the articulation of the systems thinking
definitions diverge, there are common themes:definitions diverge, there are common themes:
(a) Functions and behaviors at the(a) Functions and behaviors at the contextual edgecontextual edge
(b)(b) InteractionsInteractions of elements and how large scale things relateof elements and how large scale things relate
The primary mechanisms cited enable and encourageThe primary mechanisms cited enable and encourage(a) Translation across contextual edges(a) Translation across contextual edges
(b) Consideration of interactions(b) Consideration of interactions
(c) Higher impact learning(c) Higher impact learning
Solving the PuzzleSolving the PuzzleIntroduction
Methods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
16/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 16
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Expert Panelists and followExpert Panelists and follow--on subjectson subjects
were asked:were asked: How do you define systems thinking?How do you define systems thinking?
Considering a given systems thinking definition, whatConsidering a given systems thinking definition, what
aspects do you agree or disagree with and whyaspects do you agree or disagree with and why
205 interviews, 205 unique definitions205 interviews, 205 unique definitions
Data show that when people refer to theData show that when people refer to the
phrase systems thinking they are oftenphrase systems thinking they are often
not articulating the same conceptnot articulating the same concept
Divergent SystemsDivergent Systems
Thinking DefinitionsThinking Definitions
Systems Thinking Definitions Diverge
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
InterviewQuestions
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
17/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 17
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Example SystemsExample Systems
Thinking DefinitionsThinking Definitions Big picture
Interactions
Worrying about everything
System thinking is the ability to think about a system or system architecture
holistically, considering the design elements, complexities, the ilities, thecontext that product or system will be used in, etc.
You have to think extremely broadly. You cant focus on a specific aspect.
Think from the application of what a product is. Think from what the customer
wants explicitly. Be able to think in all the areas that are related to that device.
Its broad and deep thinking. If you cant do both, then you shouldnt do
systems stuff. You must be organized. Think without boundaries at the start.If you think that your job is the requirements, then you are a clerk, not a
systems engineer.
Connecting lots of dissimilar disciplines and weighing trade offs between
them
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
MoreDefinitions
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
18/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 18
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Reconciling SystemsReconciling Systems
Thinking DefinitionsThinking Definitions Synthesis of the definitions from the field study and the definitionsSynthesis of the definitions from the field study and the definitions
in the literature yielded an original framework of systems thinkingin the literature yielded an original framework of systems thinking
Five foundational elements:Five foundational elements:
1.1. COMPONENTIALCOMPONENTIAL -- What types of things are consideredWhat types of things are considered2.2. RELATIONALRELATIONAL -- Interconnections, interactions, and interdependenciesInterconnections, interactions, and interdependencies
both within the system of interest and between the system of interestboth within the system of interest and between the system of interest
and other systemsand other systems
3.3. CONTEXTUALCONTEXTUAL The nested and embedded nature of systemsThe nested and embedded nature of systems
4.4. DYNAMICDYNAMIC Links system in time to future and past, includes feedback,Links system in time to future and past, includes feedback,
uncertainty, risk, and the ilitiesuncertainty, risk, and the ilities5.5. MODALMODAL Aids to understand and comprehend systemAids to understand and comprehend system
Systems thinking is utilizing modal elements to consider theSystems thinking is utilizing modal elements to consider the
componential, relational, contextual, and dynamic elements of thecomponential, relational, contextual, and dynamic elements of the
system of interest.system of interest.
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
19/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 19
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Conceptual IllustrationConceptual Illustration
of Systems Thinkingof Systems Thinking
2005 Andreas Davidz, Elizabeth Davidz,Heidi Davidz. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Tools &
Methods
Types of
Thinking
Models &
Simulations
Processes &
Frameworks
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
20/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 20
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Coding ResultsCoding Results
Systems Thinking MindsetSystems Thinking Mindset This MUST be decomposed, since understandings can beThis MUST be decomposed, since understandings can be
contradictorycontradictory
Before designing an intervention, know what you are trying toBefore designing an intervention, know what you are trying toproduceproduce
SystemSystem--ofof--Systems SE TraitsSystems SE Traits
Not detail focusedNot detail focused
Thinks outThinks out--ofof--thethe--boxbox
CreativeCreative
Abstract thinkingAbstract thinking
ProcessProcess--Centered SE TraitsCentered SE Traits
Detail orientedDetail oriented
StructuredStructuredMethodicalMethodical
AnalyticalAnalytical
Define the Goal then Design the Intervention
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
21/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 21
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Difficulties withDifficulties with
Determining Strength ofDetermining Strength of
Systems ThinkingSystems Thinking
Systems Thinking Definitions Diverge
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
DivergentDefinitions
Divergent systems thinking definitions areDivergent systems thinking definitions are
problematic since strength of systemsproblematic since strength of systems
thinking is determined by observation andthinking is determined by observation andsubjective measuresubjective measure
In addition, many of the respondents do notIn addition, many of the respondents do not
know how strength of systems thinking isknow how strength of systems thinking is
determined in their organizationdetermined in their organization
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
22/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 22
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
How does your company determine if anHow does your company determine if an
employee displays strong systems thinking?employee displays strong systems thinking?
Difficulty
Observation & Subjective Measure
Level
Determination of StrengthDetermination of Strength
of Systems Thinkingof Systems Thinking
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
23/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 23
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Subjective Determination ofSubjective Determination of
Strength of Systems ThinkingStrength of Systems Thinking
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
How does your company determine if anHow does your company determine if an
employee displays strong systems thinking?employee displays strong systems thinking?
Do not
know
Observation
& Subjective
Measures
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
24/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 24
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Consensus onConsensus on
EnablersEnablers
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Consensus on primary mechanisms that enable orobstruct systems thinking development in engineers
1. Experiential learning2. Individual characteristics3. Supportiveenvironment
Even though systemsthinking definitions diverge,
there is consensus onprimary mechanisms that
enable or obstruct systemsthinking development in
engineers
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
25/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 25
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Experiential LearningExperiential Learning
Develops Systems ThinkingDevelops Systems Thinking
Remarkable Consensus for Data Solicitation Format
Q: What were key steps in your life that developed your systems thinking abilities?Q: What were key steps in your life that developed your systems thinking abilities?
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
26/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 26
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Top Ranked Categories Are All Experiential Learning
Experiential LearningExperiential Learning Inside and Outside WorkInside and Outside Work
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
27/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 27
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Experiential LearningExperiential Learning
Develops Systems ThinkingDevelops Systems ThinkingQ: In your experience, what enablers or barriers have you seen to theQ: In your experience, what enablers or barriers have you seen to the
development of systems thinking in engineers?development of systems thinking in engineers?
Top Node Category for Enablers is Experiential Learning
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
28/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 28
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Experiential LearningExperiential Learning
Develops Systems ThinkingDevelops Systems Thinking
3 of 4 Top Node Categories Are Experiential Learning
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
29/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 29
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Blue chip interviewees also support experiential learningBlue chip interviewees also support experiential learning
When I was involved in the midWhen I was involved in the mid--60s, programs went from concept to operation in 360s, programs went from concept to operation in 3--5 years. In5 years. In
a period of15 years of experience, an engineer would work on 3a period of15 years of experience, an engineer would work on 3--5 programs. They would work5 programs. They would work
up progressively to larger and larger responsibilities.up progressively to larger and larger responsibilities. There was a whittling down process soThere was a whittling down process so
that we could pick the systems engineer. There would be 3that we could pick the systems engineer. There would be 3--5 programs with 45 programs with 4--5 segments5 segments
each, so we could pick the systems engineers for the new programs from this pool.each, so we could pick the systems engineers for the new programs from this pool. We wouldWe would
have 3 to 5 to 8 people to pick from, and we could pick the best.have 3 to 5 to 8 people to pick from, and we could pick the best.
We never had a problem with training, since this was provided by onWe never had a problem with training, since this was provided by on--thethe--job training andjob training and
experience.experience. We never thought about setting up training until the 2001 timeframe when weWe never thought about setting up training until the 2001 timeframe when we
thought about how to fix the problems in space acquisitionthought about how to fix the problems in space acquisition
The training was all onThe training was all on--thethe--job. We would have young guys work on a section of the program,job. We would have young guys work on a section of the program,
then they would move up to be in charge of a particular element, then they would work there forthen they would move up to be in charge of a particular element, then they would work there for
44--5 years, then they would move to a subsystem level, then they would move up to be5 years, then they would move to a subsystem level, then they would move up to be
responsible for a segment of the programresponsible for a segment of the program. Each time, we could pick from 5. Each time, we could pick from 5--8 engineers to8 engineers to
move up to the position at that higher level.move up to the position at that higher level.
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Experiential LearningExperiential Learning
Develops Systems ThinkingDevelops Systems Thinking
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
30/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 30
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Consensus onConsensus on
EnablersEnablers
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Consensus on primary mechanisms that enable orobstruct systems thinking development in engineers
1. Experiential learning2. Individual characteristics3. Supportiveenvironment
Even though systemsthinking definitions diverge,
there is consensus onprimary mechanisms that
enable or obstruct systemsthinking development in
engineers
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
31/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 31
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Q: Are there certain individual characteristics or innate traits that seem toQ: Are there certain individual characteristics or innate traits that seem to
predict the development of systems thinking? If so, what are they?predict the development of systems thinking? If so, what are they?
Individual CharacteristicsIndividual Characteristics
Enable Systems ThinkingEnable Systems Thinking
Personality is Top Node Category for Individual Characteristics
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
32/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 32
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Individual CharacteristicsIndividual Characteristics
Enable Systems ThinkingEnable Systems Thinking
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
33/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 33
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Note: Junior SystemsNote: Junior SystemsEngineers add AnxietyEngineers add Anxiety
High in:High in:
Openness toOpenness to
IdeasIdeas
CompetenceCompetence
Low In:Low In:
SelfSelf--
ConsciousnessConsciousness
TenderTender--
MindednessMindedness
Different SampleDifferent Sample
Explanation ofOpenness to Ideas
Background onNEO PI-R
Results of NEO PIResults of NEO PI--RR
Personality TestPersonality Test1212 fromfrom
One CompanyOne Company
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
34/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 34
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Results correlate to findings by the Interdisciplinary Studies Project at
Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education led by Howard
Gardner and Veronica Boix-Mansilla13,14
At the individual intellectual level, the paper characterizes exemplary
interdisciplinary workers as embodying a disposition toward curiosity, risk-
taking, open mindedness and humility.
Curiosity in multiple areas of knowledge was a mobilizing force for the
interdisciplinary workers in our study. Curiosity emerged implicitly in their
accounts of professional growth as well as explicitly as a driving force of
interdisciplinary work. Open-mindedness is the second trait repeatedly attributed to
interdisciplinary workers and collaborators.
Outside Study Also Emphasizes Curiosity and Open-Mindedness
Link to InterdisciplinaryLink to Interdisciplinary
Studies ProjectStudies Project
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
35/75
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
36/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 36
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
3 of 5 Top Barriers Are Environmental
Q: In your experience, what enablers or barriers have you seen to theQ: In your experience, what enablers or barriers have you seen to the
development of systems thinking in engineers?development of systems thinking in engineers?
Environment AffectsEnvironment Affects
Systems ThinkingSystems Thinking
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
37/75
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
38/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 38
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethods
* Results *Implications
Conclusion
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
Statistical TestsStatistical Tests Multiple statistical tests run to compare differences between groups
Comparison of all classifications
Comparison of Senior Systems Engineers to:
The Expert Panelists
The control group of Senior Technical Specialists
The control group of Junior Systems Engineers
Comparison of all companies
Comparison of two opposing companies
Results show that the differences between groups are not
significant most of the time The Senior Systems Engineers do not differ from the other
classifications for the majority of the top-ranked node categories
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
39/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 39
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Need for SystemsNeed for Systems
OpportunitiesOpportunities
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
New United
States
Military
Aircraft
Programs byDecade and
Career
Lengths of a
Typical
Engineer(FromMurman, Walton etal. 2003, citing
Hernandez)15
Declining Opportunities for Experiential Learning
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
40/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 40
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Inappropriate EmphasisInappropriate Emphasis
on Trainingon Training1616
Emphasis is on Training Not Experiential Learning
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
41/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 41
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
InterventionMaturityInterventionMaturity
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
42/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 42
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Systems Thinking Interventions Should Be Based
on Knowledge and Include Feedback Mechanisms
InterventionMaturityInterventionMaturity
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
43/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 43
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ImplicationsImplications
for Governmentfor Government
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Applications of Research for GovernmentApplications of Research for Government1.1. INCENTIVESINCENTIVES -- Provide incentives to promote strong systemsProvide incentives to promote strong systems
thinkingthinking
2.2. POLICYPOLICY -- Adjust policies to emphasize experiential learning forAdjust policies to emphasize experiential learning for
systems thinking developmentsystems thinking development
3.3. ACQUISITION STRATEGYACQUISITION STRATEGY -- Change acquisition strategy toChange acquisition strategy to
provide more programs and opportunities for engineers toprovide more programs and opportunities for engineers to
develop systems thinkingdevelop systems thinking
4.4. RESEARCHRESEARCH -- Promote research on the mechanisms for effectivePromote research on the mechanisms for effective
systems thinking developmentsystems thinking development5.5. SYSTEMS PROGRAMSSYSTEMS PROGRAMS -- Encourage systems programs thatEncourage systems programs that
teach systems skills and systems thinkingteach systems skills and systems thinking
Set Policy Environment to Enable Systems Thinking Development
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
44/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 44
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ImplicationsImplications
for Industryfor Industry
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Applications of Research for IndustryApplications of Research for Industry1.1. INTERVENTION STRUCTUREINTERVENTION STRUCTURE -- Structure systems thinkingStructure systems thinking
interventions to emphasize experiential learninginterventions to emphasize experiential learning
2.2. FILTER AND FOSTERFILTER AND FOSTER -- Filter and foster identified individualFilter and foster identified individual
characteristics in systems organizationscharacteristics in systems organizations
3.3. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTSUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT -- Provide an environmentProvide an environment
supportive to the development of systems thinkingsupportive to the development of systems thinking
4.4. COMMUNICATE ASSESSMENTCOMMUNICATE ASSESSMENT -- Clearly communicate howClearly communicate how
strength of systems thinking is assessedstrength of systems thinking is assessed
5.5. SYSTEMS PROGRAMSSYSTEMS PROGRAMS -- Offer systems programs to teachOffer systems programs to teachsystems skills and systems thinkingsystems skills and systems thinking
Utilize the Primary Mechanisms That Enable Systems Thinking
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
45/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 45
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ImplicationsImplications
for Academiafor Academia
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Applications of Research for AcademiaApplications of Research for Academia1.1. SYSTEMS PROGRAMSSYSTEMS PROGRAMS -- Offer systems programs to teachOffer systems programs to teach
systems skills and systems thinkingsystems skills and systems thinking
2.2. FEEDBACKFEEDBACK -- Use feedback mechanisms to continually improveUse feedback mechanisms to continually improve
systems programs and systems coursessystems programs and systems courses
3.3. EMPHASIZE EXPERIENCEEMPHASIZE EXPERIENCE -- Structure programs and courses toStructure programs and courses to
emphasize experiential learningemphasize experiential learning
4.4. COURSE STRUCTURECOURSE STRUCTURE -- Structure courses and programs toStructure courses and programs to
promote systems thinking by emphasizing context and knowledgepromote systems thinking by emphasizing context and knowledge
integrationintegration5.5. RESEARCHRESEARCH -- Continue research on the mechanisms for effectiveContinue research on the mechanisms for effective
systems thinking developmentsystems thinking development
Continue Studying How Systems Thinking Actually Develops
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
46/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 46
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Key ResearchKey Research
QuestionsQuestions1.1. What are enablers, barriers andWhat are enablers, barriers and
precursors to the development ofprecursors to the development of
systems thinking in engineers?systems thinking in engineers?2.2. How do senior systems engineersHow do senior systems engineers
develop?develop?
3.3. What are the mechanisms that developWhat are the mechanisms that developsystems thinking in engineers?systems thinking in engineers?
IntroductionMethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
47/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 47
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
IntellectualIntellectual
ContributionsContributions Organized analysis of existing literature on enablers to systems
thinking development at multiple levels of analysis
Assembled extensive data set on systems thinking development
Developed a framework and conceptual illustration for reconcilingdivergent systems thinking definitions
Revealed dearth of measures for strength of systems thinking
Uncovered primary mechanisms that enable systems thinking
development in engineers
Highlighted the importance of experiential learning Discovered individual traits that enable systems thinking
Highlighted inconsistencies between policy & effective mechanisms
Identified implications for government, industry, and academia
IntroductionMethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
48/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 48
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
SummarySummaryIntroduction
MethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
Exploratory and inductive study
Field study with auxiliary interviews
Result: Even though systems thinking definitions diverge, there
is consensus on primary mechanisms that enable or obstructsystems thinking development in engineers Divergent systems thinking definitions reconciled with a systems thinking
framework, illustration and definition
Highlights importance of experiential learning
Development is enabled by individual characteristics such as openness to
ideas, curiosity, questioning, strong communication and interpersonal skills
A supporting environment also enables development
Implications for government, industry, and academia given
Rigorous Exploration of an Extensive Data Set to Discover
EffectiveMechanisms to Develop Systems Thinking in Engineers
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
49/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 49
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Enabling RigorEnabling Rigor
in SE Researchin SE Research
IntroductionMethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
Many engineers are not familiar withMany engineers are not familiar with
research methods applicable to studyingresearch methods applicable to studying
systems problemssystems problems Ideas for enhancing academic rigor inIdeas for enhancing academic rigor in
systems engineering researchsystems engineering research1.1. SE Research Methods TutorialsSE Research Methods Tutorials
2.2. SE Research Methods Task ForceSE Research Methods Task Force
3.3. SE Research CritsSE Research Crits
Ideas for Enabling SE Research Rigor
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
50/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 50
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
SE ResearchSE Research
M
ethods TutorialsM
ethods Tutorials
IntroductionMethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
After SEANET panel, multiple inquiries about research methodsAfter SEANET panel, multiple inquiries about research methods
At SEANET/CSER, there could be a series of tutorials onAt SEANET/CSER, there could be a series of tutorials on
"Systems Engineering Research Methods""Systems Engineering Research Methods" Morning tutorial on "Quantitative Research Methods for SE Research"Morning tutorial on "Quantitative Research Methods for SE Research"
Afternoon tutorial on "Qualitative Research Methods for SE Research"Afternoon tutorial on "Qualitative Research Methods for SE Research"
Or, have "Systems Engineering Research Methods" tutorials atOr, have "Systems Engineering Research Methods" tutorials at
other INCOSE conferences and at the local chapter meetingsother INCOSE conferences and at the local chapter meetings
One cannot properly cover research methods in short sessionsOne cannot properly cover research methods in short sessions
like this, but these sessions could be beginning guidance to:like this, but these sessions could be beginning guidance to:
a)a) Make people aware that rigorous methods exist andMake people aware that rigorous methods exist andb)b) Guide people to proper followGuide people to proper follow--up resourcesup resources
Highlight Possible SE ResearchMethods Using Tutorials
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
51/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 51
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
SE Research MethodsSE Research Methods
Task ForceTask Force
IntroductionMethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
The INCOSE Academic Forum could form a "Systems EngineeringThe INCOSE Academic Forum could form a "Systems Engineering
Research Methods Task Force"Research Methods Task Force" to work with the INCOSE Head ofto work with the INCOSE Head of
Research and Education to emphasize rigorous SE researchResearch and Education to emphasize rigorous SE research
The task force could:The task force could:
a)a) Develop a research methods section on the INCOSE website to guide studentsDevelop a research methods section on the INCOSE website to guide studentsand researchers to available books, experts, and other resourcesand researchers to available books, experts, and other resources
b)b) Coordinate the INCOSE offerings of tutorials and courses in SE researchCoordinate the INCOSE offerings of tutorials and courses in SE research
methodsmethods
c)c) Provide critical feedback to doctoral students during SEANET sessionsProvide critical feedback to doctoral students during SEANET sessions
d)d) Monitor the quality of the research methods in INCOSE papers/presentationsMonitor the quality of the research methods in INCOSE papers/presentations
e)e) Certify SE doctoral programsCertify SE doctoral programs Helps to raise the benchmark for rigor in SE researchHelps to raise the benchmark for rigor in SE research
Assists individuals with the often overwhelming process of SE researchAssists individuals with the often overwhelming process of SE research
SE ResearchMethods Task Force Would Address This Issue
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
52/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 52
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
SE Research CritsSE Research CritsIntroduction
MethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
In architecture school, "crits" are critical design reviews whereIn architecture school, "crits" are critical design reviews where
students pinstudents pin--up their work for professors and students to provideup their work for professors and students to provide
critical feedbackcritical feedback This review process enhances the design and the endThis review process enhances the design and the end--productproduct
NonNon--traditional students might not have a peer group to work withtraditional students might not have a peer group to work with
INCOSE could sponsor a series of regional crits where doctoralINCOSE could sponsor a series of regional crits where doctoral
students present their work at different stages and willingstudents present their work at different stages and willing
volunteers throw darts at it.volunteers throw darts at it. This could possibly be done:This could possibly be done:a)a) At SEANETAt SEANET
b)b) Before or after INCOSE conferencesBefore or after INCOSE conferences
c)c) Before or after INCOSE regional meetingsBefore or after INCOSE regional meetings
d)d) By WebExBy WebEx
SE Research Crits Provide Critical Feedback For SE Research
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
53/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 53
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Enabling RigorEnabling Rigor
in SE Researchin SE Research For the quality of SE research to be enhanced, it isFor the quality of SE research to be enhanced, it is
important for wellimportant for well--meaning students to have access tomeaning students to have access to
proper training, methods resources, and supportproper training, methods resources, and support
Better research yields better understanding of the fieldBetter research yields better understanding of the field
For an emerging academic field like SE, it is importantFor an emerging academic field like SE, it is important
for INCOSE to take leadership on enabling rigor in SEfor INCOSE to take leadership on enabling rigor in SE
researchresearch
Use INCOSE Leadership for Enabling SE Research Rigor
IntroductionMethodsResults
Implications
* Conclusion *
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
54/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 54
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
1)1) http://www.aero.orghttp://www.aero.org2)2) http://www.bmw.comhttp://www.bmw.com3)3) http://www.boeing.comhttp://www.boeing.com4)4) http://www.boozallenhamilton.comhttp://www.boozallenhamilton.com5)5) http://www.generaldynamics.comhttp://www.generaldynamics.com6)6) http://www.mitre.orghttp://www.mitre.org7)7) http://www.northgrum.comhttp://www.northgrum.com8)8) http://www.pratthttp://www.pratt--whitney.comwhitney.com9)9) http://www.sikorsky.comhttp://www.sikorsky.com10)10) QSR N6 Student MiniQSR N6 Student Mini--Manual, copyright by QSR International Pty. Ltd. Melbourne, Australia, MarchManual, copyright by QSR International Pty. Ltd. Melbourne, Australia, March
2002.2002.11)11) Maier, M. W. and E. Rechtin, The Art of Systems Architecting, CRC Press LLC, 2002.Maier, M. W. and E. Rechtin, The Art of Systems Architecting, CRC Press LLC, 2002.12)12) Costa, J., Paul T. and R. R. McCrae, NEO PICosta, J., Paul T. and R. R. McCrae, NEO PI--R Professional Manual, Revised NEO PersonalityR Professional Manual, Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PIInventory (NEO PI--R) and NEO FiveR) and NEO Five--Factor Inventory (NEOFactor Inventory (NEO--FFI), Psychological AssessmentFFI), Psychological AssessmentResources, Inc., 1992.Resources, Inc., 1992.
13)13) http://www.pz.harvard.edu/interdisciplinary/research.html, 2006.http://www.pz.harvard.edu/interdisciplinary/research.html, 2006.
14)14) Mansilla, Veronica Boix, Dan Dillon, and Kaley Middlebrooks, Building Bridges Across Disciplines:Mansilla, Veronica Boix, Dan Dillon, and Kaley Middlebrooks, Building Bridges Across Disciplines:Organizational and Individual Qualities of Exemplary Interdisciplinary Work, Interdisciplinary StudiesOrganizational and Individual Qualities of Exemplary Interdisciplinary Work, Interdisciplinary StudiesProject, Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2000.Project, Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2000.
15)15) Murman, E., M. Walton, et al. "Challenges in the Better, Faster, Cheaper Era of Aeronautical Design,Murman, E., M. Walton, et al. "Challenges in the Better, Faster, Cheaper Era of Aeronautical Design,Engineering and Manufacturing." Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems DivisionEngineering and Manufacturing." Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems DivisionWhite Paper, paper to appear in The Aeronautical Journal, 2003, citing HernandezWhite Paper, paper to appear in The Aeronautical Journal, 2003, citing Hernandez..
16)16) Skalamera, R. J., Implementing OSD Systems Engineering Policy, 2004.Skalamera, R. J., Implementing OSD Systems Engineering Policy, 2004.
ReferencesReferences
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
55/75
Thank You!Thank You!
Questions or Comments?Questions or Comments?
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
56/75
Additional SlidesAdditional Slides
D t C ll tiD t C ll ti
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
57/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 57
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Data Collection:Data Collection:
Interview QuestionsInterview Questions
DefinitionsDefinitions
Enablers & barriersEnablers & barriers
Innate traitsInnate traits InterventionIntervention
effectivenesseffectiveness
Key stepsKey steps
StrengthsStrengths
Indicators of qualityIndicators of quality
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
58/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 58
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Data Collection:Data Collection:
Survey FormsSurvey Forms DemographicsDemographics
Education & training historyEducation & training history
Work historyWork history
Processed in SPSSProcessed in SPSS
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
59/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 59
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Each interview firstEach interview first
segmented bysegmented by
questionquestion
During contentDuring content
analysis, each lineanalysis, each line
was highlighted andwas highlighted and
coded in thecoded in the
appropriate nodeappropriate node
All node categoriesAll node categories
emergedemerged -- no nodeno nodecategories existedcategories existed
at the beginning ofat the beginning of
the coding processthe coding process
QSR N6QSR N688
Coding ScreensCoding Screens
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
60/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 60
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Divergent DefinitionsDivergent Definitions
in Same Companyin Same CompanyExamples of divergent definitions from one systems organizationExamples of divergent definitions from one systems organization
Senior Systems Engineer1Senior Systems Engineer1 -- focused on thefocused on the decompositiondecomposition process,process,Deliberate decomposition process where you have requirements defined into functionsDeliberate decomposition process where you have requirements defined into functions
and then those functions are broken down into design; feedback loops betweenand then those functions are broken down into design; feedback loops between
requirements and functions; process of decomposing a complex problemrequirements and functions; process of decomposing a complex problem
Senior Systems Engineer 2Senior Systems Engineer 2 -- focused on thefocused on the domaindomain,, YouYou MUSTMUSTUNDERSTAND THE DOMAIN. You have to understand how the system could be usedUNDERSTAND THE DOMAIN. You have to understand how the system could be used
Senior Systems Engineer 3Senior Systems Engineer 3 -- focused on thefocused on the types of systemtypes of system
elementselements,, I used to think about it as technical. NOW, as I get into monetary items, itsI used to think about it as technical. NOW, as I get into monetary items, itsDOTMILPF people, technology, money, etc. (Note that DOTMILPF is the acronym forDOTMILPF people, technology, money, etc. (Note that DOTMILPF is the acronym for
Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership and Education, Personnel, andDoctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and
Facilities.)Facilities.) Senior Systems Engineer 4Senior Systems Engineer 4 -- focused onfocused on interactionsinteractions,, Similar to howSimilar to how
Ackoff does, look at the system function in the larger system, that sets the context, theAckoff does, look at the system function in the larger system, that sets the context, the
larger system. Then, disaggregate that bigger system, which is not the same aslarger system. Then, disaggregate that bigger system, which is not the same as
decomposition. Look at it in the INTERACTIONS, not the internal functions, look at it indecomposition. Look at it in the INTERACTIONS, not the internal functions, look at it in
the context of the higher level system.the context of the higher level system.
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
61/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 61
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Validated NEO PIValidated NEO PI--RR
Personality InventoryPersonality Inventory Revised NEO Personality InventoryRevised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI(NEO PI--R) designed by PaulR) designed by Paul
Costa, Jr. & Robert McCraeCosta, Jr. & Robert McCrae
Inventory is based on the fiveInventory is based on the five--factorfactor
model of personalitymodel of personality
Measures the five major dimensionsMeasures the five major dimensions
of personality, along with sixof personality, along with six
important traits or facets of eachimportant traits or facets of each
Validated in the personality literatureValidated in the personality literature99
The NEO PIThe NEO PI--R embodies a conceptual model thatR embodies a conceptual model that
distills decades of factor analytic research on thedistills decades of factor analytic research on thestructure of personality. The scales themselves werestructure of personality. The scales themselves weredeveloped and refined by a combination of rationaldeveloped and refined by a combination of rationaland factor analytic methods and have been theand factor analytic methods and have been thesubject of intensive research conducted for15 yearssubject of intensive research conducted for15 yearson both clinical and normal adult sampleson both clinical and normal adult samples
DomainsN:NeuroticismE:ExtraversionO: OpennessA:AgreeablenessC: Conscientiousness
Neuroticism FacetsN1:AnxietyN2:Angry HostilityN3:DepressionN4: Self-ConsciousnessN5: ImpulsivenessN6: Vulnerability
Extraversion facets
E1: WarmthE2:GregariousnessE3:AssertivenessE4:ActivityE5:Excitement-SeekingE6: Positive Emotions
Openness facetsO1: FantasyO2:AestheticsO3: FeelingsO4:ActionsO5: IdeasO6: Values
Agreeableness facetsA1: TrustA2: StraightforwardnessA3:AltruismA4: Compliance
A5: ModestyA6: Tender-Mindedness
Conscientiousness facetsC1: CompetenceC2: OrderC3:DutifulnessC4:Achievement StrivingC5: SelfDiscipline
C6:Deliberation
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
62/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 62
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Personality Facet ofPersonality Facet of
Openness to IdeasOpenness to Ideas The personality test authors stateThe personality test authors state99,, a high scorer on the Ideasa high scorer on the Ideas
facet enjoys rich, varied, and novel experiences in his or herfacet enjoys rich, varied, and novel experiences in his or her
intellectual life.intellectual life.
They go on to say that:They go on to say that:Intellectual curiosity is an aspect of Openness that has long beenIntellectual curiosity is an aspect of Openness that has long beenrecognized (Fiske, 1949).recognized (Fiske, 1949). This trait is seen not only in an active pursuitThis trait is seen not only in an active pursuit
of intellectual interests for their own sake, but also in openof intellectual interests for their own sake, but also in open--mindednessmindedness
and a willingness to consider new, perhaps unconventional ideas.and a willingness to consider new, perhaps unconventional ideas. HighHigh
scorers enjoy both philosophical arguments and brainscorers enjoy both philosophical arguments and brain--teasers.teasers.
Openness to ideas does not necessarily imply high intelligence,Openness to ideas does not necessarily imply high intelligence,although it can contribute to the development of intellectual potential.although it can contribute to the development of intellectual potential.
Low scorers on the scale have limited curiosity and, if highly intelligent,Low scorers on the scale have limited curiosity and, if highly intelligent,
narrowly focus their resources on limited topics.narrowly focus their resources on limited topics.
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
63/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 63
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
Senior Systems EngineersSenior Systems Engineers
vs. Expert Panelistsvs. Expert Panelists
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
64/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 64
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Senior Systems EngineersSenior Systems Engineers
vs. Senior Technical Specialistsvs. Senior Technical Specialists
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
65/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 65
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Senior Systems EngineersSenior Systems Engineers
vs. Junior Systems Engineersvs. Junior Systems Engineers
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
66/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 66
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Comparison ofComparison of
All ClassificationsAll Classifications
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
67/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 67
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Comparison ofComparison of
All CompaniesAll Companies
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
68/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 68
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Two companiesTwo companies
with opposingwith opposing
systemssystems
contextscontexts
comparedcompared One companyOne company
is a productis a product--
centric systemcentric system
Other companyOther company
has an interesthas an interest
in systemin system--ofof--systems issuessystems issues
Comparison of TwoComparison of Two
Opposing CompaniesOpposing Companies
Differences Are Not SignificantMost of the Time
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
69/75
Development of Systems ThinkingDevelopment of Systems Thinking
in Systems Engineers: The Role ofin Systems Engineers: The Role of
Experience in LearningExperience in Learning
INCOSE SymposiumINCOSE Symposium
July 10, 2006July 10, 2006
Heidi L. DavidzHeidi L. Davidz
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
70/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 70
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
AgendaAgenda
IntroductionIntroduction
Research MethodsResearch Methods
ResultsResults
ImplicationsImplications
ConclusionConclusion Conclusions on My ResearchConclusions on My Research
Reflections on Enabling SE Research RigorReflections on Enabling SE Research Rigor
* Introduction *MethodsResults
ImplicationsConclusion
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
71/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 71
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ResearchResearch
MethodsMethods
Introduction
* Methods *Results
ImplicationsConclusion
Literaturereview
AdditionalInterviews
with BlueChip ProvenExperts (N=2)Data Analysis
Using QSR N6,SPSS, MS Excel
Field Study of10 Companies
and 205Subjects
Using
Interviewsand Surveys
PilotInterviews
(N=12)
Inductive
Exploratory
TheorySynthesis
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
72/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 72
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
Field StudyField Study
(a) ContactedCompany
10 companiesparticipated
Primarily U.S.aerospacecompanies
Introduction
* Methods *Results
ImplicationsConclusion
(b) Point-of-contact
worked withothers toidentifyExpertPanelists
(c) ExpertPanelists(N=37)
Completedsurvey andinterview
Identifiedsubjects forthree follow-ongroups
(d) Follow-On Subjects Completed interview Completed survey
1. SeniorSystemsEngineers(N=62)
2. Senior
TechnicalSpecialists(N=53)
3. JuniorSystemsEngineers(N=53)
(Total of 205 interviews and 188 surveys)
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
73/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 73
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ImplicationsImplications
for Governmentfor Government
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Applications of Research for GovernmentApplications of Research for Government1.1. Provide incentives to promote strong systems thinkingProvide incentives to promote strong systems thinking
2.2. Adjust policies to emphasize experiential learning forAdjust policies to emphasize experiential learning for
systems thinking developmentsystems thinking development3.3. Change acquisition strategy to provide more programs andChange acquisition strategy to provide more programs and
opportunities for engineers to develop systems thinkingopportunities for engineers to develop systems thinking
4.4. Promote research on the mechanisms for effectivePromote research on the mechanisms for effective
systems thinking developmentsystems thinking development
5.5. Encourage systems programs that teach systems skillsEncourage systems programs that teach systems skillsand systems thinkingand systems thinking
Set Policy Environment to Enable Systems Thinking Development
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
74/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 74
Heidi Davidz, [email protected]
ImplicationsImplications
for Industryfor Industry
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Applications of Research for IndustryApplications of Research for Industry1.1. Structure systems thinking interventions to emphasizeStructure systems thinking interventions to emphasize
experiential learningexperiential learning
2.2. Filter and foster identified individual characteristics inFilter and foster identified individual characteristics insystems organizationssystems organizations
3.3. Provide an environment supportive to the development ofProvide an environment supportive to the development of
systems thinkingsystems thinking
4.4. Clearly communicate how strength of systems thinking isClearly communicate how strength of systems thinking is
assessedassessed5.5. Offer systems programs to teach systems skills andOffer systems programs to teach systems skills and
systems thinkingsystems thinking
Utilize the Primary Mechanisms That Enable Systems Thinking
-
8/9/2019 Presentation from September 12, 2006 Dinner Meeting
75/75
September 12, 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Slide 75
ImplicationsImplications
for Academiafor Academia
IntroductionMethodsResults
*Implications*
Conclusion
Applications of Research for AcademiaApplications of Research for Academia1.1. Offer systems programs to teach systems skills andOffer systems programs to teach systems skills and
systems thinkingsystems thinking
2.2. Use feedback mechanisms to continually improve systemsUse feedback mechanisms to continually improve systemsprograms and systems coursesprograms and systems courses
3.3. Structure programs and courses to emphasize experientialStructure programs and courses to emphasize experiential
learninglearning
4.4. Structure courses and programs to promote systemsStructure courses and programs to promote systems
thinking by emphasizing context and knowledge integrationthinking by emphasizing context and knowledge integration5.5. Continue research on the mechanisms for effective systemsContinue research on the mechanisms for effective systems
thinking developmentthinking development
Continue Studying How Systems Thinking Actually Develops