High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
INCOSE WMA Newsletter
April 2010
I
NSIDE
T
HIS
I
SSUE
1
Presidents Word
1
Upcoming Events
1-2
Language the Program
3
What
’
s in it for You
4
May Overview
4
Building your CONOPS
Presidents Word
First, I would like to extend my apology for missingthe meeting. I
care too much for our members’
health and well-being to attend the meeting underthe weather. However, I did hear that everythingwent well and that we were able to over thechallenges from the previous month. Now it isofficial, Experiment Trial #2 was a success.I look forward to seeing everyone at the nextmeeting.Sincerely,Steven H. DamINCOSE WMA President
Upcoming Events
May
May 11th: Monthly Meeting @ Brio
Join Lesley Painchaud for a presentation on
“Implementing
the Net-Ready Key Performance
Parameter.”
Defense programs that need toconnect to the network are required to meet net-readiness requirements, to include Net-Ready KeyPerformance Parameter (NR-KPP) compliance.6:00 p.m.
–
8:00 p.m. @ the Brio Tuscan GrilleBanquet Room, 7854L Tysons Corner CenterMcLean, VA.
Language the Program
Author: Jorg Largent
with inputs from James R. vanGaasbeekINCOSE Fellow Jack Ring has been cited as asource of some insight into the challenge. Anobservation attributed to Mr. Ring is that he has, onseveral occasions, defined
the systems engineer’s
job as:1.
Language the program2.
Define the problem3.
Drive the development effort to a balancedsolution4.
Show the customer that what you delivered
2
is what he or she thought he or she wasbuying.The first item is critical to reduce the confusionand babble when you have a multi-part customer(joint programs) and numerous otherstakeholders. It is also critical within the contractorcommunity. Remember also that he who definesthe terms of the argument controls the argument.Words have meaning, and it helps to have acommon understanding.One of the INCOSE working groups, focusing onhow best to support a particular industry, is
addressing the “language the program” challenge
and is developing an answer tailored to the needsof that industry. An inquiry for suggestions from
outside that industry’
s community prompted aresponse with two points of note:1.
Rather than looking to other systemsengineers to develop the message, perhapssoliciting the input from those in thecommunity will yield a more compellingone.2.
In order to be understood, the messageneeds to be in the language of thecustomer. The message should be based onhis or her needs and crafted in theirterminology.Very little, if any, scientific data-gathering andanalysis are needed to recognize the vulnerabilityany activity involving two or more people has tomisunderstanding due to a lack of mutualunderstanding at the onset. The relationship is
axiomatic. Given that “language the program” is
important as the first step in communicating thesystems engineering process, the question
becomes, “What does it look like?”
The message should be crafted in thelanguage of the project.
The language should facilitate defining theproblem, driving the development effortto a balanced solution, and managingcustomer expectations.
So while the importance of “language theproblem” is axiomatic, the discussion above
provides no clear definition of the qualificationsof a systems engineer to meet the challenge, nordoes it include any metrics to measure thechallenge. For example: Would one metric be thatonly those immersed in the community conveythe systems engineering message in the languageof the project? And if so, how would a systemsengineer qualify for the role on a complex projectinvolving multiple communities (manufacturingfacilities, operational facilities, training of producers, users and maintainers, operations,maintenance, et al).The discussion above is not comprehensive.Rather it is intended to provide a snapshot of oneof the challenges faced by those of us in thesystems engineering profession. Comments anddiffering perspectives are welcome. Please sendyour comments to Jorg Largent at jorg.largent@incose.org.
Reprinted courtesy of the Los Angeles INCOSE Chapter.
3
What’s
in It for You: to our Military andGovernment Members
Author: L.Nasta, INCOSE-WMA Director
Therefore,
we have shared feedback from last year’s
member survey with our members in the March MonthlyMeeting, and of course, your Board of Directors has beenbusily working to try and figure out the best ways to makechapter activities engaging for ALL our members. But whatmany of you might not know is we also have metrics on themakeup of our membership. While a large proportioncomes from the contracting/consulting community, andfrom academia, there is a sizable contingent representingmost all branches of the services and of course governmentcivilians. However, we have noticed that amongparticipants at monthly meetings, and in tutorials, theparticipation from this group is typically quite low. So I setout to try and investigate why (in a perfectly non-scientificway), and add some theories of my own based on my manyyears in the chapter and general observations as acontractor working for government and military clients(again non-scientific).Therefore, I decided to interview a government civilianstaffer at one of our Intelligence Agencies who is a dues-
paying member, and ask him “what’s up?” (his identify will
remain a secret just to keep you guessing). I uncovered noreal deep dark secret as to why his participation was low tonon-existent to date, with the possible exception of thefact that he has had no real incentive fr
om his ‘employer’
(i.e. the government agency) to engage in INCOSE orINCOSE-related training. As this individual was a contractorfor a number of years
before
he went government, henoted his association with INCOSE actually predated hisgovernment hire. However, he was able to identify that hisformer employer (Northrop Grumman) actively promotedparticipation in INCOSE and in becoming certified as asystems engineer.
(Northrop Grumman has an activetraining program to encourage their staff to get the CSEP,as does other contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton.)
Henoted he was encouraged to take courses at DAU (forDAWIA certification), and participate in collegecohort/master program for SE but that INCOSE was notnoted as a training resource. On a more personal note, hedid indicate he lived in MD and was more likely inclined notto participate due to timing/location than anything else.His former points seem to align more with my ownobservations, to wit:
private employers are much more likely toencourage/require their staff members toparticipate in INCOSE and INCOSE activities suchas the meetings and tutorials because: 1) CSEPshelp them win proposals; 2) tutorials offered byINCOSE cover relevant SE topics and are typicallysignificantly less expensive then commercialcourses.
While government managers/supervisors knowabout DAU and DAWIA certification, they knowless about the content/basis for the INCOSEcertifications because it is not publicized orsocialized enough in the government spaces oreven by DAU.
(Did you know that government staff who has successfully passed the CSEP-Acquisitionexam can waive two required DAU coursestowards DAWIA certification?)
Many military services and government agencies
develop their own ‘in
-
house’ training and mandate
it for staff rather then utilize training/educationthat may already be readilyavailable
and
affordable
and (potentially)
moreleading edge then what they offer internally.
Maybe this could even save taxpayer dollars…heh,
maybe someone should do a study?
We (the collective INCOSE “we” and the Chapter“we”) need to communicate the ‘valueproposition’ of
INCOSE-WMA Monthly Meetingsand Tutorials better and using othercommunication methods and modes to ourmilitary and government members.I hope that this article is a step in the right direction, and itwill garner your attention (if not a chuckle here and there).We would love to hear from you. Therefore, it is your turn;please feel free to send the Board your comments in replyto this article.
Add a Comment