15th Annual Conference on Systems Engineering Research

Disciplinary Convergence: Implications for Systems Engineering

Research

Eds.: Azad M. Madni, Barry Boehm

Daniel A. Erwin, Roger Ghanem; University of Southern California
Marilee J. Wheaton, The Aerospace Corporation
Redondo Beach, CA, March 23-25, 2017

Systems Engineering - making people talk!

Cecilia Haskinsa, Kristin S. Ruuda

a
NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Dept. Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
cecilia.haskins@ntnu.no, kristisr@stud.ntnu.no

Abstract
In Scandinavia, a popular brand of pastilles uses the slogan “Läkerol makes people talk!” This phrase is
the first that came to mind when considering a title for this report on use of systems engineering approaches
to organize and implement a master’s program thesis. A valorised systems engineering process, SPADE,
is used to design the research approach and two systems thinking/engineering methods, the systemigram
and swimlane diagrams, are used to conduct and document the research. The significance of this project
was the way in which these relatively simple visualizations were able to engage the case company
managers in the elicitation process and to facilitate an environment of interdepartmental cooperation. As
the point of contact put it, “This was the first time they created a truly end-to-end view of their company
purchasing, manufacturing and warehousing processes.”

Keywords: elicitation methods; systemigram; swimlane diagrams

1. Introduction
Documented applications of systems engineering are less than 100 years old, but there is no scarcity of
methods and approaches to support the systems engineer in their work [1, 2]. The case company is a
producer of high-tech sensors and other systems, headquartered in Norway with offices around the world,
including the USA, Spain, the UK, Australia, and Canada. In addition to manufacturing these products, the
company offers different support functions, repair and installation services. Key market sectors are offshore
shipyard industries, naval, and research organizations. In these competitive markets, it is necessary to
uphold a high service level as a strategic instrument to gain and keep customers. Thus, delivery precision
is one of their KPIs and software is used to track flows in and out of the warehouses. Much of this paper is
excerpted from the student’s master’s thesis submitted in June 2016 [27].

2. Research method
In the university preparation courses, students are introduced to many research methods. When the time
comes to write their thesis, they must chose approaches that are best suited to their research objectives.
Systems engineering as a research method offers a systemic and systematic way to collect, analyze and
share the results of their research. Systems thinking is attractive as it seeks to understand the big picture,
by recognizing that a system is composed of parts and their interconnections, and that the way they are
structured, generates the system behavior [3]. Systems thinkers recognize the importance of changing
perspectives and observing patterns in changes and trends [4]. The systems engineering perspective builds

1
on systems thinking [5]. It is a structured discovery process [6], that through an interdisciplinary approach,
aims at enabling the realization of successful systems. In this research, the researcher chose to utilize the
SPADE methodology.
2.1. SPADE: a systems engineering methodology
The SPADE methodology was developed at NTNU as a systems engineering methodology for small
research projects [7]. The acronym stands for Stakeholders, Problem formulation, Alternatives and
analysis, Decision-making, and Evaluation. The methodology is a valorized version of more complicated
and robust systems engineering practices. As shown in figure 1, the methodology is represented visually
as a circular model to emphasize the highly iterative nature of problem solving and to allow the user to enter
the methodology at any point and traverse left, right or across the diagonal. It is important to note that all
activities are interconnected, thus a change or decision in one activity has the potential to influence other
activities. However, common sense should suggest that selecting a solution before knowing the stakeholder
requirements is not the best way to achieve success. SPADE has been applied numerous times and is
described in previous articles [8, 9, 10].

Figure 1: SPADE methodology

Evaluation appears in the center of the framework because this activity touches all other activities. The
process of evaluation is a control function to ask, are we there yet? It is a continuous question that supports
flexibility and change. Continuous evaluations facilitate introduction of new stakeholders and their late-
arriving viewpoints to influence the scope of the problem. These new arrivals may change or alter the
problem formulation and the relevant alternatives that are identified and analyzed. Based on this evolving
environment, decisions should be re-evaluated based on the measures of performance and success criteria
established in the problem formulation stage.
This circular movement continues as long as the stakeholders are involved. Feedback and opinions from
them are continuously evaluated. When stakeholders adopt new solutions or adjust their culture or the
processes, feedback helps the researcher to update the current understanding of the situation, the problem
formulation, the alternatives and the suggested solution. In this way, the suggested solution should best fit
the problem and the stakeholder needs.
In this research, continuous evaluation has been supported by inputs from the literature study and new
knowledge has been used to re-evaluate previously collected information, decisions, and understandings.
The continuous nature of this research is also exemplified in the minutes of the meeting [27] as each face-
to-face interaction in the case company involved more people who were engaged and happy to be heard
and contribute to the research. This was very helpful when validating initial understandings about the
internal processes of the company.
As a communication and a decision-making tool, systemigrams and swimlane-diagrams were utilized to
visualize company processes during the case work [11]. The following sections present these systems
thinking methods in more detail.

2
 2.2. Systemigrams: a systems thinking method
Systemic diagrams or systemigrams are a schematic network [12] developed by John Boardman [13].
The network is composed of entities represented as nodes with arrows representing the inter-relationships,
as seen in Error! Reference source not found.. Systemigrams are useful to capture the essence of
complex systems. The aim of using the diagram in this research was to prepare for communication in
meetings and interviews. As an artifact, they contributed to generating a shared understanding across the
organization, and a document that could capture this agreement.
The decision to use systemigrams in this research was based on the benefits provided by the graphical
method. Systemigrams are a systems thinking modelling technique [14], that can visualize enterprise flow,
inputs, outputs, beginnings, and ends. They create artifacts that are easier to understand and remember
compared to a written text [12]. Moreover, as the graphical model allows for text emphasizing the
relationships between the nodes, it is a more precise modelling tool when communicating key interactions
between stakeholders. Ramsay et al. [12] argue that systemigrams will enhance an organization’s ability
for internal evaluation, and assist learning and facilitate continuous improvement of its processes [15].
Having visually expressed the system architecture, stakeholders are able to see the conceptual system
and how inter-relationships contribute to a complex system [14]. One property of the systemigrams, is the
modeler’s option to decompose the model into scenes that describes a story of what the systemigram
represents whether a message or a process [16]. This is termed storyboarding, because a complete
systemigram is not the end of a story, but possesses the basis for telling a story in a variety of ways. The
researcher used storyboarding when communicating with stakeholders.
2.3. Swimlane-Diagram: a systems thinking method
A swimlane-diagram is a graphical network that aims at visualizing responsibilities for certain activities
defined to complete a specific operation or process [17, 18]. It is also referred to as an activity diagram by
Object Management Group (OMG), or a cross-functional flow diagram by Microsoft [19]. The swimlane
notation divides process models graphically in horizontal columns or vertical rows. At the beginning of each
column or row, labels are used to name the partition. These partitions typically indicate departments,
people, or other organizational units. The operation workflow is mapped out with details concerning
activities, including decision paths necessary to progress the workflow to complete the operation. This
includes showing the sequence of actions, identifying activity inputs, outputs and the relationships between
the activities. Responsibility is graphically allocated to organizational units by locating activities in specific
swimlanes. Typically, key shapes are used to separate different categories of activities [19]. These key
shapes visualize physical activities and triggering decisions activities. Moreover, shapes can be used to
identify information that is stored in a digital database and on a written document.
The researcher chose to use swimlane-diagrams in this research to visualize complex operations within
the case company. Obtaining a holistic view of the case company included being able to effectively describe
interactions between organizational units and activities, and their allocated responsibilities.
2.4. Case study
Triangulation is an approach where multiple sources of information are used to reinforce the evidence
collected [20, 21, 22]. This is one approach to secure the quality of a case study. In this research, case
data was collected through company documents and working papers, semi-structured interviews, and
workshop sessions with key informants.
The research project revolves around a single company, which allows a researcher to acquire in-depth
knowledge regarding the chosen company operations. The disadvantage of only one case is the inability
to draw a general conclusion [22]. This is due to the individual characteristics of each case, available data,
and the uncertainty of the interpretations done by the researcher. However, Meadows [23] states in her
article that complex systems are complex, and that it is dangerous to generalize them. By studying these
complex systems, theories and preliminary findings can be further investigated and confirmed, patterns can
be found, and theories can become more precise [24]. Experience regarding problem causes and

3
symptoms can be developed and used as preliminary findings for further research activity for other complex
case studies. Thus, this research sits in a continuum of departmental research projects.

2.4.1. Company data and working papers

A thorough study of the case company’s procedures was conducted by reading working papers and
company documents. These where made available to the researcher by company representatives and
through the project database. Reading such documents enhanced the researchers understanding of current
company practices and issues, in addition to preparing the researcher for company visits and further
information collection. Studying company papers is one type of qualitative data that is considered to be
subjective [21]. To ensure correct understanding and to verify statements and descriptions of particular
interest, additional steps were taken during company visits.

2.4.2. Semi-structured interviews

The researcher chose to collect additional information through semi-structured interviews. These
interviews were done on site in the case company’s headquarters. Before each visit, the researcher
communicated the topic and purpose of the interviews to the company, who in turn arranged for prime
interview participants to be available on the day of the visit. Interview guides were prepared in advance,
thereby providing a certain structure to the interviews, in terms of relevant topics and important questions
[25]. A semi-structured interview approach was chosen for the flexibility given to the researcher to decide
how and when to ask questions, depending on the interview situation [26]. The interviews were in conducted
in English and Norwegian to reduce misunderstandings. The interview guides where prepared in English.

2.4.3. Workshop sessions

Two workshop sessions were conducted at the company headquarters. These meetings aimed at
obtaining a shared understanding between the researcher and the case company participants. Each
workshop focused on collecting data to support different research objectives [20]. During the first workshop,
managers and representatives from almost all departments were present. Systemigrams that represented
the researcher’s best understanding derived from project documents was used kick-start the discussion.
The second workshop involved managers and representatives from all departments. A swimlane-diagram
was prepared for the session and validated during follow-on interviews.
After each session, reports were sent to the participants to collect their feedback and additional
comments and to identify any misunderstandings by the researcher. These reports contained not only
written text, but also illustrations and visualizations created during the company visits.

3. Results

When students begin their masters’ thesis research they are often engaged to provide assistance to
existing research projects ongoing in the department. At the same time, this provides them with a real-world
contact experience while focusing, or limiting, the field of interest. In this situation, the student entered a
project for a company that was in a state of reorganizational flux while trying to maintain a status quo of
production and meeting existing and new customer orders. Existing project documentation reflected this
uncertainty and did not provide a firm basis upon which to begin the research. The student researcher was
also taking an overview course on systems engineering and felt that the application of systems thinking
methods could help provide this foundation, as described above. In addition to research questions related
to the project assignment, a third research question (RQ) was asked and answered:
RQ3: How can combinations of systems engineering methods support the collection of information and
communication in the case study?

4
 3.1. Mapping of procedures
Taking an enterprise view, the researcher created a mapping of the end-to-end operations related to the
manufacturing operations of the case company. The final mapping in a swimlane-diagram covered four
pages of the thesis, and is understandably company-confidential. The diagram illustrates departments and
their responsibilities in terms of executing activities. The graphical illustration includes details concerning
the sequencing of operations and the AS-IS information and material flow. A small sample is given in
Appendix A. Systemigrams were an important precursor to the creation of the swimlane diagrams, and an
example of the warehouse systemigram is given in Appendix B.
3.2. Observations based on applying the systems methods
The student observations are divided into 3 sections; preparing for, conducting, and post-workshop
documentation.

3.2.1. Preparing for the Workshop Sessions

Systemigrams: The researcher used systemigrams before each workshop session. The systemigrams
proved helpful in identifying missing details in the overall information available and understanding. Drawing
systemigrams was hard work as the researcher first needed to learn the process for creating them and then
did not have a thorough understanding of the systems at the company when trying to use them. However,
the exercise helped the researcher prepare for the workshop sessions, provided some inspiration, and
provided a foundation for determining what information was needed and how to retrieve it. In addition,
mapping out the theme of the day helped narrow the scope of the workshop set achievable objectives for
each session. Systemigrams were used in both of the two workshop sessions.
Swimlane-diagrams: Before the second workshop session, a swimlane-diagram was drawn, presenting
a detailed end-to-end view of the information collected up to that point. This diagram was based on a
systemigram, but due to the qualities of the swimlane-diagram more details became visible. The researcher
decomposed operations into more detailed activities, expressing relationships and flow of communication.
This schematic method was utilized to illustrate missing details in current understanding and uncover key
topics for interviews and discussion. Similar to systemigrams, drawing swimlane-diagrams is work
intensive. However, advantages such as enhancing understanding and thorough preparation for the
workshop session were observed as benefits by the researcher.

3.2.2. Conducting the Workshop Sessions

Systemigrams: During the workshop sessions the researcher observed that the systemigram proved to
be effective communication methods. Even though this type of graphical network was new for all the
workshop session participants, they quickly grasped the purpose and how to read the schematic network.
The researcher observed that during the kick-off presentation, participants responded far better to the
systemigrams, compared to written material or the researcher speaking alone. Key topics for interviews
and discussion were introduced in the systemigrams, and in some cases discovered while drawing on a
white board during the meeting. Participants became quickly involved, and were able to verify if the
researcher’s current understanding was correct. When incorrect or imprecise, corrections could be easily
re-drawn directly on to the systemigram.
During the first workshop session, the participants were able to draw an end-to-end systemigram of the
information and material flow within the firm. The meeting became quite animated as managers commented
on the work of the person at the board, or took the pen themselves and began adding to the diagram
themselves. The project point of contact observed later that this was one of the most positive and
collaborative meetings of this group and it set the tone for the remainder of the student research.
During the second workshop session, systemigrams where combined with semi-structured interviews.
The researcher observed this combination to be a great success as valuable feedback and useful
comments on current practices, challenges and issues were communicated, and it was possible to obtain
verification from participants not present when it was discussed.

5
 Swimlane-diagrams: One aim of the swimlane-diagram was to identify the extent to which software
could support the company activities. The swimlane-diagram was the basis for interviews during the second
workshop, facilitating the workshop session participants to effectively identify missing details, and to correct
errors for the researcher. For each interview, participants were given a clean version of the swimlane-
diagram. This enabled the participants to draw directly in the diagram without making it too “messy”. Once
again, swimlane-diagrams engaged the participants, and the researcher has been informed that this
visualization helped the participants understand their internal processes and relationships in a new way.
The second workshop session, included participants not involved in the first workshop. Having the
swimlane-diagram made it easy for the researcher to communicate the current state of collected data and
to relate completely new information with the old.
Interestingly, visualizing previously collected information (the collectively drawn systemigram) in a new
way, made participants respond differently (than the first time) and gave information from another
perspective. In addition, the information became more precise, contributing to an increased holistic
understanding of the situation. Visualizing who is responsible for a given activity, and how that activity is
related to other activities, contributed to this outcome. Participants had an obvious ownership of their own
tasks, and the preciseness of the swimlane-diagram managed to verify current understanding and to extract
more detail information and meanings.

3.2.3. Post-workshop documentation

Revising and updating the systemigrams and the swimlane-diagram after the workshop sessions
contributed to enhance the researcher’s holistic understanding and facilitated the study of company
challenges. More importantly, working with these mapping techniques allowed the researcher to think about
possible solutions to suggest alternatives for addressing the project objectives.

4. Discussions and conclusions

This section contains the student researcher’s observations to addresses RQ 3. Understanding the
system architecture has been a vital aspect in this research for understanding the systemic issues of the
production-inventory system of the case company. During the case study, the researcher addressed
several stakeholders with current understandings and interpretations regarding diverse concepts. In the
initiating phase of collecting information, systemigrams were an effective communication method as it
supported precise communication. The literature supports the observation that systemigrams enable
stakeholders to explore a range of perspectives while maintaining a single objective [14]. Perhaps what
was less expected was the degree of engagement and commitment to ‘get the picture right’ that developed
in the meetings between the stakeholders and the researcher.
Blair et al. [16] observed in his research that to preserve the readability of the systemigrams, the ratio of
nodes and arrows should be approximately 1.5. Boardman and Sauser [13] and Blair et al. [16] state that
the systemigram is particularly suited to express the strategic intent. The researcher observed both of these
phenomena. When the drawing became too large or detailing became too precise, the systemigram lost its
some of its value as an internal evaluation method that could assist learning and facilitate continuous
improvement. Academic researchers suggest using the storyboard technique or developing a hierarchical
structure of systemigrams as ways of avoiding a reduction in readability [13, 14, 16]. The authors consider
these suggestions as valid if communication is written where the reader can go back and forth between
pages, studying the interactions. However, in a workshop setting, having several interconnected
systemigrams in a hierarchical structure is awkward.
Once the researcher experienced the strength of the systemigram technique to be able to illustrate the
big picture and the rough lines and company operations at a high level, she decided to combine the
systemigram method with the swimlane-diagram technique to facilitate communication on a more detailed
level. In other words, the researcher took the operation concept described in the end-to-end systemigram
and some additional information collected from the case study, and translated the information into the
swimlane-diagram template. This allowed the researcher to keep the readability and preciseness

6
experienced from the systemigram, while simultaneously obtaining additional detailed information on
activities, relationships, and responsibility.
Combining these methods in a stepwise procedure allowed the researcher to focus on the tactical
relationships before going deep into details concerning operational interrelationships. The researcher
observed that the stakeholders were able to provide information on a more precise level after the swimlane
was established, indicating areas of responsibility. Figure 2 illustrates the synergy between these systems
thinking methods in support of research. Additional observations made by the researcher concerning the
combined use of systemigrams and swimlane-diagrams are as follows:
 Easy to understand
 Easy to learn
 Engaging conversation
 Involve workshop participants
 Enhanced understanding of current practices across the company
 Enhanced understanding of relationships

Figure 2: Systemigram illustrating the synergy between systemigrams and swimlane-diagrams

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to NTNU and the case company for their cooperation in this research, and to
the Norwegian Research Council for their funding and support.

7
Appendix A. Excerpt from project swimlane diagram
As indicated in the text, the entire swimlane diagram is extensive and company-sensitive. This excerpt
illustrated the use of columns, connectors, and a variety of shapes to indicate the respective activities.
Likewise, portions of the total diagram were partitioned using dashed-lines to reflect specific goals.

8
Appendix B. Systemigram of company warehouse interactions
As stated in the text, systemigrams were an important communications vehicle for understanding the
unique interactions between various warehouses in the case company.

9
References
1. Buede, D M, and WD. Miller. The engineering design of systems: models and methods. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
2. Bonnema, GM, KT. Veenvliet, and JF. Broenink. Systems design and engineering: facilitating multidisciplinary development
projects. CRC Press, 2016.
3. Meadows, DH. 2008. Thinking in Systems: a primer, Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
4. http://watersfoundation.org/systems-thinking/habits-of-a-systems-thinker/
5. INCOSE (2015). Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Process and Activities (4th ed.). DD. Walden, GJ.
Roedler, KJ. Forsberg, RD. Hamelin, and, TM. Shortell (Eds.). San Diego, CA: International Council on Systems Engineering.
6. Bahill, T, Brown, P, Buede, D & Martin, JN. Systems Engineering Fundamentals. INSIGHT, 5:7-10 (2002).
7. Haskins, C. "Systems engineering analyzed, synthesized, and applied to sustainable industrial park development." Norges Teknisk-
Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim 2008 (2008): 175.
8. Fossnes, T, and C Haskins. "2.4.1 An investigation into how systems engineering can help preserve natural environments." INCOSE
International Symposium. Vol. 18. No. 1. 2008.
9. Shainee, M, et al. "Designing offshore fish cages using systems engineering principles." Systems Engineering 15.4 (2012): 396-
406.
10. Eide, HM, and C Haskins. "Trade Study of Alternative Controls and Power Distribution Architecture in Subsea Processing."
INCOSE International Symposium. Vol. 26. No. 1. 2016.
11. Edson, R. Systems Thinking. Applied. A primer, Applied Systems Thinking Institute. 2008.
12. Ramsay, DA., Boardman, JT. & Cole, AJ. Reinforcing learning, using soft systemic frameworks. International Journal of Project
Management, 14, 31-36. 1996.
13. Boardman, J. & Sauser, B. Systems Thinking, Coping with 21st Century Problems, Taylor & Francis Group. 2008.
14. Sauser, B., Li, Q. & Ramirez-Marquez, J. Systemigram modeling of the small vessel security strategy for developing enterprise
resilience. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45, 88-102. 2011.
15. Sherman, D., Cole, A. & Boardman, J. Assisting cultural reform in a projects-based company using Systemigrams. International
Journal of Project Management, 14, 23-30. 1996.
16. Blair, C. D., Boardman, J. T. & Sauser, B. J. Communicating strategic intent with systemigrams: Application to the network‐
enabled challenge. Systems Engineering, 10, 309-322. 2007.
17. Friedenthal, S, A. Moore, and R Steiner. A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling language. Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.
18. Rittgen, Peter, ed. Enterprise modeling and computing with UML. IGI Global, 2006.
19. Wijnhoven, F. Enabling the collective brain for organizations: a quickstart in management software skills. Enschede, Netherlands:
University of Twente, Faculty of Management and Governance, Department of Industrial Engineering and Business Information
Systems. 2013.
20. Yin, R. K. Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage. 2009.
21. Karlsson, C. Researching Operations Management, New York, NY, Taylor & Francis. 2009.
22. Silverman, D. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction, Sage. 2006.
23. Meadows, D. Places to Intervene in a System. Whole Earth, 91, 78-84. 1997.
24. Eisenhardt, KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14, 532-550. 1989.
25. Kvale, S. Doing Interviews, SAGE Publications, Ltd. 2007.
26. Edwards, R. & Holland, J. What is qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury Academic. 2013.
27. Ruud, K.S. Multi-Stage Replenishment System: a Case Study. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Department of Production and Quality Engineering. 2016.

10