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".
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Our Education System
One of my best friends back home is a school counselor at the high school that we both went to 8 years ago. He has quite a unique viewpoint on our education system because many of the teachers that taught us are now the teachers that he manages, works with on a daily basis, and considers peers. I love talking with him about our former teachers, I suppose mainly because it's just fun to talk about, but also because I think it gives me a better understanding of our education system and why elements of it sucks so bad.
Before you hear (or ignore) my opinion, know that I'm critical of only a handful of teachers. Several of my greatest influences in my life have been teachers, people that truly cared about my future and ability to be successful. I'm critical of those that stand next to these honorable role models and call themselves equal, yet do damage beyond what they realize.
One of the obvious conclusions that comes up every time we talk about our former teachers is how the useless teachers that taught us years ago are still useless today. I would ask my friend to describe a teacher that I had in mind, and his description was almost exactly what I would have described from my experience. We both feel that there are people that become teachers for reasons other than bettering kids lives through education. Whether from their own weaknesses they want to be in a position of power in the classroom, didn't know what else to do in college, or are just plain poor teachers, they're still there. Where I work, if someone doesn't perform, they are removed. I could give you example after example of teachers that don't just not teach, but seem to even reverse the process. I don't see why our education system that's costing taxpayers billions of dollars should be based on any other business model than providing a quality product. Yet teachers have something called 'tenure'. High school teachers obtain tenure in 3 years, and after that it is nearly impossible to be fired. Tenure's purpose is to "protects respected teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics." This internal policy should be reserved for colleges and universities, not high schools where foundational topics are taught. We need an education system that demands quality from those we are paying to provide a necessary service to our culture. Rather than have an education system where educators have an indefinite stay after only 3 years of moderate observation, we should remove tenure and create a system based off of performance and objective review. With this, I believe increased salaries for those that provide quality education will naturally follow.
I started writing my thoughts about this topic while listening to a caucus debate and hearing the presidential candidates chatter about their opinions on how the education system should be reformed. I think Einstein's quote is a good illustration of the problem we face with this issue: "The world we've made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems that we cannot solve at the same level at which we created them for." I feel additional steps and outside influence need to be taken to create progress in the existing educational system we currently have. I like idea's that I've heard such as a 'West Point' for teachers to train excellent teachers for the worst schools, programs for students not planning to continue on to college, getting rid of tenure, and so on.
I feel very strongly about the importance of our education, so I thought it important to give my opinion. The fabric of our nation is laid on education. Information is essential, indispensable, and all the other synonyms for the expression 'crucial'. Information is power, and is only attainable through education. People make poor decisions because of their personal lack of education. There are so many areas that this nation struggles with on every topic including crime, business, jobs, families and so on and so on, that improved education could and would positively impact. The larger the percentage of the general public that obtains a well rounded educated, the safer, wealthier, and kinder our nation will be.
I ran across an interesting article today (09/01/08) that might be worth further reading. It's from an organization's website called Global Business Network - they are an organization revolved around collecting and generating insights, research, and opinions about the forces shaping the world.
Before you hear (or ignore) my opinion, know that I'm critical of only a handful of teachers. Several of my greatest influences in my life have been teachers, people that truly cared about my future and ability to be successful. I'm critical of those that stand next to these honorable role models and call themselves equal, yet do damage beyond what they realize.
One of the obvious conclusions that comes up every time we talk about our former teachers is how the useless teachers that taught us years ago are still useless today. I would ask my friend to describe a teacher that I had in mind, and his description was almost exactly what I would have described from my experience. We both feel that there are people that become teachers for reasons other than bettering kids lives through education. Whether from their own weaknesses they want to be in a position of power in the classroom, didn't know what else to do in college, or are just plain poor teachers, they're still there. Where I work, if someone doesn't perform, they are removed. I could give you example after example of teachers that don't just not teach, but seem to even reverse the process. I don't see why our education system that's costing taxpayers billions of dollars should be based on any other business model than providing a quality product. Yet teachers have something called 'tenure'. High school teachers obtain tenure in 3 years, and after that it is nearly impossible to be fired. Tenure's purpose is to "protects respected teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics." This internal policy should be reserved for colleges and universities, not high schools where foundational topics are taught. We need an education system that demands quality from those we are paying to provide a necessary service to our culture. Rather than have an education system where educators have an indefinite stay after only 3 years of moderate observation, we should remove tenure and create a system based off of performance and objective review. With this, I believe increased salaries for those that provide quality education will naturally follow.
I started writing my thoughts about this topic while listening to a caucus debate and hearing the presidential candidates chatter about their opinions on how the education system should be reformed. I think Einstein's quote is a good illustration of the problem we face with this issue: "The world we've made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems that we cannot solve at the same level at which we created them for." I feel additional steps and outside influence need to be taken to create progress in the existing educational system we currently have. I like idea's that I've heard such as a 'West Point' for teachers to train excellent teachers for the worst schools, programs for students not planning to continue on to college, getting rid of tenure, and so on.
I feel very strongly about the importance of our education, so I thought it important to give my opinion. The fabric of our nation is laid on education. Information is essential, indispensable, and all the other synonyms for the expression 'crucial'. Information is power, and is only attainable through education. People make poor decisions because of their personal lack of education. There are so many areas that this nation struggles with on every topic including crime, business, jobs, families and so on and so on, that improved education could and would positively impact. The larger the percentage of the general public that obtains a well rounded educated, the safer, wealthier, and kinder our nation will be.
I ran across an interesting article today (09/01/08) that might be worth further reading. It's from an organization's website called Global Business Network - they are an organization revolved around collecting and generating insights, research, and opinions about the forces shaping the world.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
East Coast Living
It’s been an interesting experience getting married and moving across the country to start our lives all on our own. I think I’ve felt that this is what I’ve wanted to do ever since I started taking the thought of marriage seriously. I suppose the desire to get married and then move away comes partially from my parents. In a good way of course.
Years ago, they both encouraged me to consider starting my marriage in a new area where we could develop our marriage from the start without influences from both them and my someday future in-laws. Looking back at Christie’s and my experience, I think that was wise advise. Sure, there are plenty of things that we are missing out on like family functions such as birthdays, holidays, and so on, not to mention half the cost of living compared to the East Coast. But I also look at what we’ve gained. I truly believe that Christie and I have something that we wouldn’t have if we were to have stayed in Colorado. Without having the comfort of family to fall back on, we’ve become quite comfortable in relying on each other.
Working together to make a team knowing that no one’s there to bail us out if it doesn’t work puts that extra incentive to make it work. I value that more than a few missed birthdays for a few missed years on a mortgage. We found our jobs together, we found our church together, we found our car, home, school, etc. together. I think there is a level of trust and confidence that we would have missed out on developing if not having moved 2,700 miles away from all that we knew. But don’t get me wrong, when the time’s right… we’re coming home!
Years ago, they both encouraged me to consider starting my marriage in a new area where we could develop our marriage from the start without influences from both them and my someday future in-laws. Looking back at Christie’s and my experience, I think that was wise advise. Sure, there are plenty of things that we are missing out on like family functions such as birthdays, holidays, and so on, not to mention half the cost of living compared to the East Coast. But I also look at what we’ve gained. I truly believe that Christie and I have something that we wouldn’t have if we were to have stayed in Colorado. Without having the comfort of family to fall back on, we’ve become quite comfortable in relying on each other.
Working together to make a team knowing that no one’s there to bail us out if it doesn’t work puts that extra incentive to make it work. I value that more than a few missed birthdays for a few missed years on a mortgage. We found our jobs together, we found our church together, we found our car, home, school, etc. together. I think there is a level of trust and confidence that we would have missed out on developing if not having moved 2,700 miles away from all that we knew. But don’t get me wrong, when the time’s right… we’re coming home!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
My blog
I read blogs, I have friends that blog, and I think the general idea behind blogs are a fantastic idea. Then I had my own fantastic idea... I'll start my own. Too be honest, I'm not entirely sure what I'm going to blog about, but I'm sure I'll figure that out. I have my opinions and thoughts, and I'm excited for the opportunity to grace you with my all so reflective insight into this complex world. (please note the sarcasm :-))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
