As I continue my way through the Systems Engineering masters program, I’m finding myself longing for the most basic and rudimentary definition for what Systems Engineering is. I know what a system is, and I know what an engineer is, but what exactly is System Engineering? There are certainly more than enough definitions out there, but finding the right definition for myself is crucial if I indeed plan to have a successful career in the topic. Applying the ‘law of parsimony’, or Occam’s Razor, I believe that System Engineering consists of 2 basic elements.
The first element is organization – to get what is in peoples heads onto paper. This would seem fairly trivial, but as systems grow larger and more complex, you soon see that there is an efficient and systematic way to organizing information for many people to collaborate on. It is fairly easy with a bright mind and some form of education on a particular subject to conceive a collection of ideas that fashion a solution for a particular problem. It is another thing to take an idea and successfully implement a complex system of interconnected pieces and parts that work together seamlessly. As system become progressively more complex containing a nearly un-fathomable number of components, it is critical that there exist a system of documenting the thoughts that brought about a solution and it’s instructions. With this organization is built the foundation for collaboration to begin. Even God Himself said that “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” – Genesis 11. Organization within Systems Engineering allows all involved to ‘speak the same language’. Lest just pray that we build systems that do not glorify ourselves… we’ve seen how that ends up.
The second element is decision making - the process for obtaining the best result stemming from the necessity to choose between two or more alternatives. This as well seems trivial, but again, due to the immense amount of complexity systems are beginning to represent, deciding to choose one alternative over another could have a ripple effect that runs throughout the entire system. The ability to logically and analytically attain data representing why one approach is a more advantageous alternative than another is critical. Essentially, the entire architecture of a solution is a collection of decisions. An entire field has been dedicated to the art of decision-making called Decision Analysis, and has become pivotal to the process of system architecture.
Short and simple, the combination of these two elements facilitates the process of reducing risk within a system. That is why Systems Engineering exists.
I look forward to the next year of grad school and see how my views on Systems Engineering change. I hope what I have written above is dead on, but if there’s anything that I have learned, it’s that I’m rarely ‘dead on’.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Grad School
Many of you know that I’m back in school. Probably because I’m always talking about it. I suppose what’s on your mind is what you talk about, and it certainly has been taking up a large part of my mind lately. I’m getting my Systems Engineering masters degree at UMBC (University of Maryland Baltimore County). I ran into a former co-worker the other day and told him about my attempt at a Systems Engineering masters degree, and he quickly rolled his eyes. “Systems Engineering, why would you waste your time with that? What the heck is Systems Engineering anyhow?”
I can’t really blame him for reacting that way. A lot of companies ranging from the very large to the small start-ups have those positions that they’re not really sure what to call them, so they slap the name ‘Systems Engineer’ on it for a title. Most likely they’re entry-level positions that require only a few functions in order to become familiar with a project or technology. So the fact that people don’t think highly of Systems Engineering isn’t really all that surprising. The problem stems from the fact that people don’t understand what Systems Engineering is or what its purpose holds.
INCOSE defines Systems Engineers as "a branch of engineering whose responsibility is creating and executing an interdisciplinary process to ensure that customer and stakeholders needs are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy, cost efficient and schedule compliant manner throughout a system's entire life cycle, from development to operation to disposal.” So what the heck does that mean? Well, Systems Engineering is composed of many disciplines including gathering the requirements that define the solution to the problem, defining the boundaries and interfaces through partitioning, functions and functional flow, measurements of performance, risk assessment and management, and so on and so on. This is a vague and very incomplete description, but it gets the idea across.
As society’s problems become more and more complex, the solutions needed to tackle those problems will be that much more complex. The approach taken towards these problems can’t be solutions made up of one particular field. Airplanes are mechanical, electrical, aeronautical, material, and so on in nature. A great deal of planning, preparation, and program management is needed to guide so many fields to a single and complete goal. There are so many things that can go wrong, and so few things that can go right. Many of the undistinguished solutions that we take for granted everyday that increase the value of our lives are systems that had to be meticulously planned and constructed, many times over the course of years or decades. Something not to be taken lightly. I hope that I can some how be a part of constructing something so intricate and complex to be used and appreciated like the systems I use and appreciate today.
I can’t really blame him for reacting that way. A lot of companies ranging from the very large to the small start-ups have those positions that they’re not really sure what to call them, so they slap the name ‘Systems Engineer’ on it for a title. Most likely they’re entry-level positions that require only a few functions in order to become familiar with a project or technology. So the fact that people don’t think highly of Systems Engineering isn’t really all that surprising. The problem stems from the fact that people don’t understand what Systems Engineering is or what its purpose holds.
INCOSE defines Systems Engineers as "a branch of engineering whose responsibility is creating and executing an interdisciplinary process to ensure that customer and stakeholders needs are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy, cost efficient and schedule compliant manner throughout a system's entire life cycle, from development to operation to disposal.” So what the heck does that mean? Well, Systems Engineering is composed of many disciplines including gathering the requirements that define the solution to the problem, defining the boundaries and interfaces through partitioning, functions and functional flow, measurements of performance, risk assessment and management, and so on and so on. This is a vague and very incomplete description, but it gets the idea across.
As society’s problems become more and more complex, the solutions needed to tackle those problems will be that much more complex. The approach taken towards these problems can’t be solutions made up of one particular field. Airplanes are mechanical, electrical, aeronautical, material, and so on in nature. A great deal of planning, preparation, and program management is needed to guide so many fields to a single and complete goal. There are so many things that can go wrong, and so few things that can go right. Many of the undistinguished solutions that we take for granted everyday that increase the value of our lives are systems that had to be meticulously planned and constructed, many times over the course of years or decades. Something not to be taken lightly. I hope that I can some how be a part of constructing something so intricate and complex to be used and appreciated like the systems I use and appreciate today.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Evolution...?
I was raised a Christian, cultivated in all things 'bible' from the time I could walk and talk. I'm the 7th generation Carver born in the Grand Valley on the Western Slope of Colorado where my great-great-great-great grandpa (yes ... 4 greats) settled and his son (my great-great-great grandpa) started a church. My grandparents on my mom's side were missionaries their whole life. My mom volunteered as a nurse at the bible camp I grew up going to for the first half of my life. Down this path, I was taught from the earliest age that evolution was not what Christians believed. Closing my eyes and plugging my ears was just about the only option I had growing up when the topic of things 'billions of years old' came up.
Now, I can't wait for the next Scientific American or Discovery magazine to come out with the latest and greatest discoveries being made, particularly related to articles about genetics and cosmology. To be honest, I think one of the reasons I'm drawn to these topics is because I know so little about them... that everyone knows little about them... and because it seems obvious that God created them. I feel as though God is letting us lick our fingers after sticking them in the giant cake that he made for us that is this universe. From the smallest particles that we know of to the largest black holes at the center of galaxies, we are barely scratching the surface of seeing what God has made.
The truth is that I hate talking about these subjects with other Christians. It seems Christians are the first one's that should be so exited about the new discoveries that are being made in science, unraveling the secrets of God's creation. Yet it seems that majority of the time Christians have a brick wall built because that's not what they were taught. I don't think that Christians should turn their back on what they believe, but I am asking that they peek over their wall and at least listen. Who knows, you might even begin to feel a new sense of awe at another entirely new area of God's creation that you've been missing out on this whole time.
As the Princeton conservative theologian Benjamin Warfield said, "We must not then as Christians assume an attitude of antagonism toward the truths of philosophy or the truths of reason or to the truths of science or truths of history or the truths of criticism. As children of Light, we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every ray of light. Let us then cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day. None should be more zealous in them than we. None should be more quick to discern truth in every field, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it whithersoever it leads. It is not for Christians to be lukewarm in regard to the investigations and discoveries of the time. Rather, as followers of the Truth, indeed we can have no safety in science or in philosophy save in the arms of Truth. It is for us, therefore, as Christians to push investigation into the utmost, to be leaders in every science, to stand in the band of criticism, to be the first to catch in every field the voice of the Revealer of Truth who is also our Redeemer. All truth belongs to us as followers of Christ, the Truth. Let us at length enter into our inheritance."
I got this quote from an article written by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. It's a pretty long quote, but I think it does a great job it describing why Christians need to not build walls against new scientific discoveries. I'm not saying that we should blindly accept them either. I'm just saying that I believe that Biologist, Geneticists, Astrophysicists, High Energy Particle Physicists, Archaeologist, and so on are not out to find a new discovery with some hidden agenda. They are using their God given brains to use reason and judgment just as He intended us to use them and discover Him ... whether they know it or not.
Dr. Collins directed and led the team to mapping the entire human genome 3 years ahead of schedule. In 2003 he wrote a very interesting article titled 'Faith and the Human Genome'. It certainly brings up many questions, but the article also is full of insightful thoughts regarding evidence pointing towards creationism through the process of macro-evolution. Dr. Collins points to macro-evolution's support through the growing and compelling evidence from the fossil record. More and more fossils are being discovered showing transitional species linking modem day animals to ancient animals that are now extinct. Support also comes from DNA evidence that he discusses in a large part of his article.
Of course there will be questions brought up concerning consistency with Genesis 1. Quoted from Dr. Collins' article, Dr. Darrel Falk points out that "one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse." Did God create all of the rules of physics that we observe today sometime between Genesis 1 and now? I rather doubt it.
I'm writing this I suppose for two reasons. First, I hope that non-Christians might read this and see hope that not all Christians turn a blind eye to new discoveries being revealed through biology and physics. As Dr. Collins suggested, it seems that the bible is a story of God's love towards us, not a textbook. I understand why one would want to resist the beliefs of Christians when they so easily turn their back to logic and reason made through the process of scientific discovery. Second, I hope that Christians read this and stop laying bricks on the wall that separates them and the science that they fear will prove their beliefs wrong. Maybe it's not about being wrong, but rather changed. Could God still die on the cross for us and still love us, even though He created us in a way that we hadn't been able to see until recently? I think so.
St. Augustine says it best, "In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too with it."
Chad
To see Dr. Francis Collins' article, see this link to "Faith and the Human Genome".
Now, I can't wait for the next Scientific American or Discovery magazine to come out with the latest and greatest discoveries being made, particularly related to articles about genetics and cosmology. To be honest, I think one of the reasons I'm drawn to these topics is because I know so little about them... that everyone knows little about them... and because it seems obvious that God created them. I feel as though God is letting us lick our fingers after sticking them in the giant cake that he made for us that is this universe. From the smallest particles that we know of to the largest black holes at the center of galaxies, we are barely scratching the surface of seeing what God has made.
The truth is that I hate talking about these subjects with other Christians. It seems Christians are the first one's that should be so exited about the new discoveries that are being made in science, unraveling the secrets of God's creation. Yet it seems that majority of the time Christians have a brick wall built because that's not what they were taught. I don't think that Christians should turn their back on what they believe, but I am asking that they peek over their wall and at least listen. Who knows, you might even begin to feel a new sense of awe at another entirely new area of God's creation that you've been missing out on this whole time.
As the Princeton conservative theologian Benjamin Warfield said, "We must not then as Christians assume an attitude of antagonism toward the truths of philosophy or the truths of reason or to the truths of science or truths of history or the truths of criticism. As children of Light, we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every ray of light. Let us then cultivate an attitude of courage as over against the investigations of the day. None should be more zealous in them than we. None should be more quick to discern truth in every field, more hospitable to receive it, more loyal to follow it whithersoever it leads. It is not for Christians to be lukewarm in regard to the investigations and discoveries of the time. Rather, as followers of the Truth, indeed we can have no safety in science or in philosophy save in the arms of Truth. It is for us, therefore, as Christians to push investigation into the utmost, to be leaders in every science, to stand in the band of criticism, to be the first to catch in every field the voice of the Revealer of Truth who is also our Redeemer. All truth belongs to us as followers of Christ, the Truth. Let us at length enter into our inheritance."
I got this quote from an article written by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. It's a pretty long quote, but I think it does a great job it describing why Christians need to not build walls against new scientific discoveries. I'm not saying that we should blindly accept them either. I'm just saying that I believe that Biologist, Geneticists, Astrophysicists, High Energy Particle Physicists, Archaeologist, and so on are not out to find a new discovery with some hidden agenda. They are using their God given brains to use reason and judgment just as He intended us to use them and discover Him ... whether they know it or not.
Dr. Collins directed and led the team to mapping the entire human genome 3 years ahead of schedule. In 2003 he wrote a very interesting article titled 'Faith and the Human Genome'. It certainly brings up many questions, but the article also is full of insightful thoughts regarding evidence pointing towards creationism through the process of macro-evolution. Dr. Collins points to macro-evolution's support through the growing and compelling evidence from the fossil record. More and more fossils are being discovered showing transitional species linking modem day animals to ancient animals that are now extinct. Support also comes from DNA evidence that he discusses in a large part of his article.
Of course there will be questions brought up concerning consistency with Genesis 1. Quoted from Dr. Collins' article, Dr. Darrel Falk points out that "one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse." Did God create all of the rules of physics that we observe today sometime between Genesis 1 and now? I rather doubt it.
I'm writing this I suppose for two reasons. First, I hope that non-Christians might read this and see hope that not all Christians turn a blind eye to new discoveries being revealed through biology and physics. As Dr. Collins suggested, it seems that the bible is a story of God's love towards us, not a textbook. I understand why one would want to resist the beliefs of Christians when they so easily turn their back to logic and reason made through the process of scientific discovery. Second, I hope that Christians read this and stop laying bricks on the wall that separates them and the science that they fear will prove their beliefs wrong. Maybe it's not about being wrong, but rather changed. Could God still die on the cross for us and still love us, even though He created us in a way that we hadn't been able to see until recently? I think so.
St. Augustine says it best, "In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too with it."
Chad
To see Dr. Francis Collins' article, see this link to "Faith and the Human Genome".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
