See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327073051

Version 1.0 of the New INCOSE Competency Framework

Article  in  INCOSE International Symposium · July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2018.00583.x

CITATIONS READS

2 3,582

5 authors, including:

Kenneth Nidiffer Richard Beasley

Carnegie Mellon University Rolls-Royce
8 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   101 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implementing / Embedding Systems Engineering View project

INCOSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING COMPETENCY Working Group View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Beasley on 28 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 28th Annual INCOSE International Symposium (IS 2018)
Washington, DC, USA, July 7-12, 2018

Version 1.0 of the New INCOSE Competency Framework

Don S. Gelosh
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, MA USA
dsgelosh@wpi.edu

Mimi Heisey John R. Snoderly

Lockheed Martin Corporation Defense Acquisition University
Manassas, VA USA Ft. Belvoir, VA USA
mimi.heisey@lmco.com John.Snoderly@dau.mil

Ken Nidiffer Richard Beasley

Software Engineering Institute Rolls-Royce plc
Pittsburgh, PA USA Bristol, UK
nidiffer@sei.cmu.edu Richard.Beasley@rolls-royce.com

Copyright © 2018 by Don Gelosh, Mimi Heisey, John Snoderly, Ken Nidiffer and Richard Beasley. Published and used by INCOSE with
permission.

Abstract. The next major evolution of the INCOSE Competency Framework (ICF) is Version 1.0.
This paper describes the major sections of the ICF Version 1.0 document. The main section of the
document is the competency framework structure which has evolved into five competence groups
and 36 core competence areas across five levels of proficiency. Because this is a role-based
competency framework, another major section is a guide to role definition that describes the typical
roles systems engineers may assume. This paper also describes how the Competency Framework
relates to the Systems Engineering processes as described in the INCOSE SE Handbook, 4th Ed. A
subsequent section of the ICF Version 1.0 document provides use cases for the framework with a
detailed look at recruitment, candidate assessment, education program improvement, resources for
professional development, curriculum alignment, and career path development. The document also
includes a section that explains how to tailor the competency framework to suit using organizations.
The paper concludes by exploring the next steps to successfully publish and review Version 1.0 of
the new INCOSE Competency Framework.

Introduction
This paper presents Version 1.0 of the new INCOSE SE Competency Framework. In 2014,
INCOSE leadership tasked the Competency Working Group with two objectives. The first
objective is to evolve the current INCOSE Competency Framework (INCOSE, 2010), referred to as
Issue 3, to a globally accepted (i.e., approved for release as an INCOSE product) and marketed
standard competency framework, based on systems engineering effectiveness, that can be used to
produce competency models tailored to the needs of the customer organizations. This is an
important distinction, the competency framework is not itself a competency model. The proposed
competency framework is meant to be used as a guide to the creation and development of
competency models by the using organizations. The second objective is to create a globally used
standard assessment instrument/tool based on the competency framework that is tailorable to the
needs of the customer organizations. This means that the tool may be published separately as a
related or included as an ancillary INCOSE product in the future. Version 0.5 of the proposed
INCOSE Competency Framework has been published previously and set the stage for further
evolution (Gelosh, 2015). Version 0.75 (Gelosh, 2017) furthers that evolution by aligning the
competency framework with several important initiatives.
1
 INCOSE Competency Framework Version 1.0
Version 1.0 of the INCOSE Competency Framework update is the final complete version. The
INCOSE Competency Working Group (CWG) agreed to a phased approach in order to socialize
and discuss the competency framework with as many stakeholders as possible throughout its
development. The CWG itself consists of stakeholder representatives from across many disciplines
in INCOSE. These representatives serve as team leads, authors, and reviewers. Some of the non-
author representatives also helped to formally validate the competencies against known standards in
their specific areas of interest. In order to be complete and maintain continuity with previous work,
Version 1.0 covers all competencies listed in the current INCOSE UK Competency Framework
Issue 3 (INCOSE, 2010). When published, this Version 1.0 will become known as Version 4 of the
INCOSE Competency Framework.

Outline for Version 1.0

Figure 1 shows the notional agreed outline for the Version 1.0 update. Note: as the CWG team
leads review and edit the final document, this outline may evolve. The CWG believes that the final
document should address all of these areas in order to make the intent of the competency framework
very clear and to facilitate its use across a wide variety of using organizations.

Figure 1. INCOSE Competency Framework Version 1.0 Outline

The Introduction section describes the overall purpose and scope of the Competency Framework.
This section addresses why the new competency framework was proposed and developed and
describes the scope of what is being covered by the new framework. The Competency Framework,
Systems Engineering Roles Descriptions, Use Cases and Tailoring the Competency Framework are
described in more detail in the following sections of this paper. The section on Competency Model
Assessments using the Framework describes how organizations can evaluate their derived
competency models against the framework. The section on Future Evolution of the Competency
Framework describes some concepts on how the framework can be revised based on organization
usage and feedback.

The Appendix includes three sections. The section on Guide to Competency Evaluation provides
guidance on how to evaluate people against the framework. The Alignments to other Initiatives
section describes all of the initiatives both inside and outside INCOSE that influenced and guided
the evolution and development of the framework. The section on Domain Based Competency

2
Models Examples illustrates how the framework can be used to create competency models for
different domains such as Oil and Gas, Systems Security Engineering and Healthcare.

Competency Framework – Groups and Core Competence Areas

The Competency Framework in Version 1.0 consists of five competence groups (with individual
descriptions) and 36 core competency areas. Table 1 shows the five competency groups with their
descriptions.

Table 1: Competence Groups and Descriptions

Competence Groups Descriptions

Covers core principles which underpin engineering as
Core Systems Engineering Principles
well as systems engineering.
Covers behavioral competencies which are all well-
established within the Human Resources (HR) domain.
Definitions of these competencies were taken from well-
Professional
established, internationally-recognized sources to
facilitate alignment with wider HR frameworks used in
larger organizations.
Covers the competencies needed to perform a series of
Technical tasks associated with the Technical Processes identified
in the INCOSE SE Handbook 4th Edition.
Covers the competencies needed to perform tasks
Systems Engineering Management associated with controlling and managing systems
engineering work.
Covers the systems engineering competencies required to
Integrating understand and integrate the viewpoints and perspectives
of others into the overall picture.

Table 2 shows the 36 core competence areas in Version 1.0. However, these core competence areas
should not be construed as the only competencies that are “allowed”. These competencies
constitute what we call the core areas because we believe that any systems engineering competency
model derived from the framework should include most, if not all, of these competencies. The
overall goal of the competency framework is to help using organizations to develop a competency
model with the competencies that make sense for their mission.

Table 2: Core Competence Areas

Core Systems Engineering Principles: Professional:

• Systems Thinking • Communications
• Lifecycles • Ethics and Professionalism
• Capability Engineering • Technical Leadership
• General Engineering • Negotiation
• Critical Thinking • Team Dynamics
• Systems Modelling and Analysis • Facilitation
• Emotional Intelligence
• Coaching and Mentoring
Technical: Systems Engineering Management:
• Requirements Definition • Planning
• System Architecting • Monitoring and Control
• Design for… • Decision Management
• Integration • Concurrent Engineering
• Interfaces • Business & Enterprise Integration
• Verification • Acquisition and Supply
• Validation • Information Management
• Transition • Configuration Management
• Operation and Support • Risk and Opportunity Management
3
 Integrating:
• Project Management
• Finance
• Logistics
• Quality

As described in (Gelosh, 2016), the CWG conducted several competency working sessions during
the INCOSE International Workshop in January 2016. Some of these sessions included
representatives of the INCOSE Corporate Advisory Board (CAB), the major source of the
stakeholders. The CAB representatives (and CWG members for that matter) are usually mid- to
upper-level line managers and executives from their companies with several years of experience in
systems engineering, engineering, and program management. The CWG held several working
sessions at the International Workshop in 2017 as well. During those sessions, the CWG, with the
help of several stakeholder representatives in attendance, reached consensus on the 36 core
competence areas that would support a role-based competency framework. We ensured that these
core competence areas in Version 1.0 included the areas recommended by the CAB representatives.

The Professional Competencies group is new in the proposed framework update. This group
contains professional and interpersonal competencies that enable the successful accomplishment of
systems engineering activities. The CWG decided at IW2017 to task the members of Cohort 2 of
the INCOSE Institute for Technical Leadership to develop the Proficiency Level tables for the
professional competencies using various respected sources of technical leadership knowledge and
skills. The Cohort 2 members responded with excellent proficiency level descriptions that align
with current and leading edge trends in technical leadership and interpersonal skills.

As stated in (Gelosh, 2015), the professional competencies are especially important because
“Successful systems engineering requires engineers to work together in a team environment,
incorporating the appropriate leadership skills in accomplishing a systems engineering activity can
actually enhance the outcomes of the activity.” You can actually extend similar thinking to the
other competence groups as well. According to (Gelosh, 2017) “When the appropriate
competencies from the five competence groups are brought together to support the successful
accomplishment of a particular systems engineering activity, the outcomes of that activity are
enhanced by a synergistic effort.”

Competency Framework – Relationship to Systems Engineering

Processes
It is important to recognize that the competencies defined in the Competency Framework
complement (not replace or contradict) the definitions of Systems Engineering processes contained
in the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook Fourth Edition (Walden et al, 2015). Having the
right competencies enables those conducting the processes to effectively produce the desired
outcomes.

Figure 2 shows how the competencies can be mapped against the processes in the Handbook. This
mapping will be reviewed and updated once the competence definitions have been completed. In
Figure 2 there are two types of relationships indicated – H for high where there is a high need for
the competency to perform the process, and S for some where there is some need of the
competency. The competency definition and proficiency level tables take into account the
processes (and hence the process definitions) where they are used. We have been careful
throughout the competency framework to ensure language and definitions are consistent with the
handbook.

4
 Competency Framework – Proficiency Level Tables
Version 1.0 of the proposed competency framework includes 36 Proficiency Level Tables, one for
each core competence area. Each table provides a description, an explanation on why the
competence area matters and the effective indicators of evidence-based knowledge and experience
across the five levels: Awareness, Supervised Practitioner, Practitioner, Leading Practitioner and
Expert. As an example, Table 3 shows a notional example of proficiency level information for the
competence area of Systems Thinking, which is in the Core SE Principles Competence Group.

Agreeme
nt
processe Organisational project-
Technical processes Techncial management processes s enabling processes
Level 1 LEVEL 2
Competence Groups Core Competence Areas

stakeholder needs and requirements defintion

Project assessment and control

human resource management

Life cycle model management
Infrastrucutre management
configuration management
Business / Mission analysis

information management

Knowledge mangement
Portfolio management
Decision management
System reuqirmeents

Quality management
Quiality assurance
Risk managmeent
project planning
design defintion

Implementation
System analyiss

measurement
Maintenance
Archiecture

Verification
Integration

Acquistion
Operation
Transition
validation

Disposal

supply
Core SE Principles Systems Thinking H H H H S S H H S H H H H H H S S S S S S S S H S S S S S
Lifecycles S S S S S H S H S S S S S S S S S S S S H S
Capability Engineering S H S S S S H S S H S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S H S S S
General Engineering S H S H H H S S S S S S S S S S H S S
Critical thinking S H S H H S S S S S S S S S S H H H S S H H S
Systems Modelling and Analysis H H H H H H S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
Professional Communications
Competencies Ethics and Professionalism
Technical Leadership
Negotiation
Team Dynamics
Facilitation
Emotional Intelligence
Mentoring
Technical Requirements Definition H H H S S S S S S S S H S S H
Competencies System Architecting S H H
Design for… H H S S H
Integration S S S H H
Interfaces S S S S
Verification H
Validation S S H
Transition H H
Operation and Support S H H H S
SE Management Planning S S S S S H S H H H S S S
Competencies Monitoring and Control S S S S S S H S S H
Decision Management H H S H S S
Concurrent Engineering S S S S S S S S S H
Business & Enterprise Integration H S S S S S S S H S H H H
Acquisition and Supply H H S S S S H H
Information Management S S S S S S S H S S S S H S
Configuration Management S S S S H S S S S H
Risk and Opportunity Management S H H S H S S H
Integrating Project Management S H H S S S S S H S
Competencies Finance S
Logistics S S S H S
Quality S S S H H H H

Figure 2. Relationships between Systems Engineering Processes and Competencies

Table 3. Proficiency Level Table for Systems Thinking

5
 COMPETENCY AREA - Systems Thinking
Description:

The application of the fundamental concepts of systems thinking to systems engineering. These include understanding what a system is, its context within its environment, its boundaries and
interfaces and that it has a lifecycle. The definition, development and production of systems within an enterprise and technological environment.

Why it matters:
Systems thinking is a way of dealing with increasing complexity. The fundamental concepts of systems thinking involves understanding how actions and decisions in one area affect another, and that the
optimisation of a system within its environment does not necessarily come from optimising the individual system components. Systems Engineering is conducted within an enterprise and technological
context. These contexts impact the lifecycle of the system and place requirements and constraints on the Systems Engineering being conducted. Failing to meet such constraints can have a serious effect
on the enterprise and the value of the system.

EFFECTIVE INDICATORS OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

AWARENESS SUPERVISED PRACTITIONER PRACTITIONER LEADING PRACTITIONER EXPERT

Can explain / understands the properties of a Able to identify and manage complexity with Able to review and judge the suitability of systems Able to review and judge the suitability of systems
Is aware of the need for systems thinking
system appropriate techniques in order to reduce risk solutions and the planned approach solutions and the planned approach

Understands principle of emergence and can see

Has reviewed and advised on the suitability of Influences and maintains the technical capability
Aware of the importance of: how system behaviour produces emergent Able to predict resultant system behaviour
systems solutions and strategy of their enterprise
porpoerties

Defines context of a system from a range of view Has led the development / capture of new /
Understands system hierarchy and the principles Influences and maintains the local technical
■      hierarchy of systems points, and defines system boundaries and adjusted or combined Systems Thinking methods
of system partitioning strategy in this area
external interfaces (including combination of methods)

Contributes to definition / understadning of system Able to assess the interaction between humans
■      system context (for a given system of interest Recognised as a local expert in systems thinking Recognised as an authority in systems thinking
functionality and systems, and systems and systems

Can identify system boundaries and understands
■      interfaces - understands need to identify them
the need to define and manage the interfaces
Identifies the enterprise and technology issues Has introduced new techniques and ideas iinto the Has championed the introduction of novel
which will affect the design of a system and busienss which have produced measurable techniques and ideas in this field which produced
translates these into system requirements improvement measurable improvement

Understands how to choose and use range of

■      interactions amongst systems and their Understands how humans and systems interact Has contributed to defintion of best practice for Has contributed to best practice outside local
Systems Thinking methods and integrate
elements and how humans can be elements of systems Systems Thinking within local organisation organisation
outcomes, to get a full understanding of the whole

Identifies (with guidance) influence of business
■      understanding purpose and functionality of a
enterprise, and contributes to the technology
system of interest
development plan
Able to contribute to delivery of enterprise Able to intrduce and adapt Systems Thinking Defines best practices in "Systems Thinking",
improvements to enable better system concepts and methods to group with no or limited embedding lessons learnt and experience
development competency, and / or to new siutations (internally and externally generated)

Recognises that putting parts together achieves Has contributed to best practice in systems
Contributes and supports (with their won insights) Able to lead group Systems Thinking activities,
emergence of the whole and that emergence and Has coached new practitioners in this field thinking extending beyond current organisation or
team Systems Thinking activities aligned to purpose of current activity
be positive or negative business boundary

Aware of the influence that business, enterprise Able to reuse and adapt case studies and previous
Able to guide practitioners in best practice
and technology has on the definition and examples / application of Systems Thinking in new
techniques
development of the system situations

Recognises that approach to Systems Thinking will Regarded as expert in systems thinking within
Able to guide supervised practitioners
vary according to situation current organisation or business

As another notional example, Table 4 shows the proficiency level information for the competence
area of Negotiation, one of the Professional competencies.

Table 4. Proficiency Level Table for Negotiation

COMPETENCY AREA - Negotiation

Description:
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with respect to at least one of these issues. This
beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved, or just for one or some of them. It is aimed to resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to
satisfy various interests. It is often conducted by putting forward a position and making small concessions to achieve an agreement.
Why it matters:

Negotiation is a commonplace activity. While once the exclusive domain of formal collective bargaining, buyer–seller transactions, and international diplomacy, this activity is part of routine interactions in the workplace, the family, legal contexts,
and interpersonal relationships. Workers negotiate with their bosses and their colleagues about job assignments; children negotiate with their parents regarding bedtime; lawyers negotiate to settle legal claims for clients; and friends negotiate
about what movie to attend. In effect, negotiation is something everyone does as part of routine activities as well as major accomplishments, such as obtaining a job, getting a raise, buying a house, or orchestrating a corporate merger. As a
result, people need to understand what negotiation is and how to hone their competencies and skills in this activity.

EFFECTIVE INDICATORS OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

AWARENESS SUPERVISED PRACTITIONER PRACTITIONER LEADING PRACTITIONER EXPERT

Able to acknowledge when to negotiate
Able to establish working level relationships with third-
party counterparts to resolve routine issues
Can support negotiations by providing information and
being part of the team
Negotiate in tough situations with both external and
Understand who the key stakeholders are in a given Demonstrate use of a direct and diplomatic style;
Recognise the different negotiating styles of parties internal stakeholders; demonstrate confidence, good
situation and be able to communicate individual challenge information to detect discrepancies in
to a negotiation and adapt style accordingly political savvy and maintain credibility with third-party
requirements reasoning
key decision-makers
Adjust personal positions and style quickly if
Research and use data from a range of sources to Lead the most complex negotiations and demonstrate
Manage buy-in and gain trust with internal circumstances change favourably and unfavourably;
make robust fact-based decisions; make available expert closing skills and excellent political and cultural
stakeholders prior to and during negotiations win concessions without damaging stakeholder
choices clear and simple to stakeholders savvy
relationship
Manage internal expectations and keep all parties Mange the negotiation team effectively; ensure each Lead fact-based decision-making for long-term
Understand stakeholder’s positions and bargaining
informed of developments; ensure best negotiation member is fully prepared for the negotiation; strategic issues; analyse the wider business and
power and be able to negotiate and/or participate in
practice in terms of preparation, approach, strategy, consistently secure positive outcome from the political implications when making decisions, including
negotiations with some support
tactics and style negotiation the effectiveness of outcome
Handle objections, challenge the points of view Assess and lead fact-based decisions in high-risk
Review the immediate results, broad implications and Share strategic insights and knowledge to help others
expressed by others and get other people to support situations; coach others accordingly; and take
unintended consequences of a decision make sound decisions
your views. accountability for final decision outcomes
Show an excellent sense of timing, quickly gain trust
and respect of all other parties to the negotiations

Systems Engineering Roles Descriptions

The proposed INCOSE Competency Framework update was developed to support the creation of
generic role statements, thus embedding systems engineering competencies into the enterprise.
Therefore, this major section of Version 1.0 guides using organization on developing generic role
statements that describe the typical roles that systems engineers may assume in their enterprise.
This major section on Systems Engineering Roles is described in full detail in (Gelosh, 2017).

Use Cases
Another major section in Version 1.0 is entitled “How to Use the Competency Framework”. The
purpose of this section is to present several use cases that demonstrate how organizations may use
the competency framework to achieve their various goals. Our approach to use cases is described in
full detail in (Gelosh, 2017). The following use cases will be included in Version 1.0:
• Recruiting
• Assessing Candidates
• Improving Education and Training Programs
• Identifying Resources for Professional Development
6
 • Aligning Curriculum
• Developing Career Paths
• Others

Tailoring the Competency Framework

The proposed INCOSE Competency Framework update is not intended to become just another
competency model that no one uses. According to (Gelosh, 2017) “the framework is structured so
using organizations can tailor it to develop competency models that are ideally suited to their
unique needs and workforce”. This means the framework is meant to help using organizations
create SE Role-Based Competency Models that make the most sense for them. The core
competence areas described in Version 1.0 can support most any systems engineering role. Using
organizations can tailor the framework by adding new competence areas, revising them, or only
using a subset when deriving their own competency models, as long as they maintain the general
format and intent of the framework. Using organizations can also create or modify the Proficiency
Level tables for their unique competencies, as long as they maintain the five levels and general
format and intent. Using organizations can develop their own unique set of systems engineering
roles and use cases as well.

Next Steps
The completion of Version 1.0 is a major milestone in the update of the INCOSE Competency
Framework. In order to maintain continuity with the current INCOSE Competency Framework,
which is referred to as Issue 3, this Version 1.0 update will now become Version 4. The next phase
is limited publishing of Version 4, followed by solicited reviews from the major INCOSE
stakeholders such as the Board of Directors, the Corporate Advisory Board, the Certification
Advisory Group and the Fellows. Beyond Version 4, further work is needed to address the guide to
Competency evaluation (appendix A of the Current Framework (INCOSE, 2010). The current
competency assessment is longer than the framework, but is not as much work, as it will be mostly
use the mapping currently done from the existing competencies to the new definitions in their
competency, and adding the further detail. Note that this guide to evaluation can be reversed, and
used for professional development by identifying the typical experiences and activities that might
be used to acquire the desired level of competency. So in Systems Engineering terms consider the
framework as the requirements for given levels of proficiency in different competencies, and the
guide to evaluation as the guide to the forms of verification evidence that would be expected as
proof the level attained.

Conclusion
This paper provides a high-level description of Version 1.0 of the proposed update to the INCOSE
Competency Framework, Issue 3. Version 1.0 furthers the evolution achieved in Versions 0.5 and
0.75. For completeness, Version 1.0 includes all competence areas listed in the current INCOSE
United Kingdom based Competency Framework and the competencies selected by stakeholder
representatives from the INCOSE Corporate Advisory Board, along with complete Proficiency
Level tables for each of the 36 core competence areas. This paper presents the outline of the
Version 1.0 update and describes several of the major sections such as the Competency Framework
itself that includes five Competence Groups, 36 Core Competence Areas, and the Proficiency Level
tables for each competence area. The paper also describes the following major sections of Version
1.0: Systems Engineering Roles Descriptions, Use Cases and Tailoring the Competency
Framework. The paper concludes by describing the next steps for publication and review. As
stated previously, in order to maintain continuity with previous issues of the current INCOSE
Competency Framework, Version 1.0 will now be designated Version 4.

7
 References
Gelosh, D., M. Heisey, J. Snoderly and K. Nidiffer, Version 0.75 of the Proposed INCOSE Systems
Engineering Competency Framework, International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE), Proceedings of the International Symposium 2017.

Gelosh, D., M. Heisey, J. Snoderly and K. Nidiffer, The Path to Version 0.75 of the Proposed
INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency Framework, International Council on Systems
Engineering (INCOSE), Proceedings of the International Symposium 2016.

Gelosh, D., M. Heisey, J. Snoderly and K. Nidiffer, Version 0.5 of the Proposed INCOSE Systems
Engineering Competency Framework, International Council on Systems Engineering
(INCOSE), Proceedings of the International Symposium 2015.

INCOSE, 2010. Systems Engineering Competencies Framework 2010-0205. San Diego, CA, USA:
International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE). INCOSE-TP-2010-003.

Walden, D., Roedler, G., Forsberg, K., Hamelin, R. and Shortell, T. (Eds.), 2015 Systems
Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities (4th
Edition); San Diego, CA, International Council on Systems Engineering, INCOSE,
published by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., ISBN 978-1-118-99940-0

Biography
Dr. Don Gelosh is the Director of Systems Engineering Programs at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
(WPI). He is responsible for growing and developing the various SE programs delivered through
WPI's Corporate and Professional Education department. Dr. Gelosh has over 42 years of systems
engineering experience from the US Air Force, government, industry, and academia. Before WPI,
Dr. Gelosh was Deputy Director for Workforce Development, working for the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering at the Pentagon. In previous assignments, he was
lead systems engineer for communications and payload integration on NASA's Vehicle Integration
and Test Team supporting the Space Shuttle, he taught Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
USAF Academy, he served as Deputy Department Head for Electrical and Computer Engineering at
the Air Force Institute of Technology and was Dean of Learning and Technology at the National
Defense University. Dr. Gelosh received his PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Pittsburgh, a Master's Degree in Computer System Design from the University of Houston at Clear
Lake, and a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from The Ohio State
University. He holds an INCOSE CSEP-Acquisition certification and is Defense Acquisition Corps
Level III certified in Systems Engineering.

Mrs. Mimi Heisey is a Systems Engineering Manager at Lockheed Martin Corporation, with over
38 years of Systems Engineering experience on programs ranging from radiation hardened
computers for a variety of space applications to sonar and anti- submarine warfare systems flying
on P3 and S3 aircraft as well as a variety of Navy helicopters and undersea applications for
submarines. After graduating with a degree in Mathematics, Mrs. Heisey went to work for IBM
Federal Systems which, through company purchases, ultimately became Lockheed Martin.
Throughout her career, she has worked to develop systems that met customer expectations as well
as working on Corporate Engineering and Technology tasks to define the development of effective
Systems Engineers. She is on a Missions Systems & Training Board of Directors for reviewing and
approving applications for Lockheed Martin Qualified Systems Engineers. In addition, she is part of
a training team bringing systems engineering perspective and training to new employees interested
in becoming systems engineers. Currently, Mrs. Heisey is a member of the NDIA Education and

8
 Training Committee, co-chair of the Systems Engineering Competency Working Group and serves
on the Systems Engineering Research Center Corporate Advisory Board for the Helix Project.

Dr. John Snoderly was the President of International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE)
from 2002-2004. He is the current Chairman of the INCOSE Foundation. He is an INCOSE
Certified Systems Engineering Professional (CSEP). He currently is a member of the IEEE and a
member of the IEEE Standards Association. He was one of 70 authors of the 2012 Systems
Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBOK). He received a Doctor of Public Administration Degree
from USC in December of 1996. He received a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from
USC in May 1995. He also holds a Master Degree in Systems Management from USC in 1973 and
a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering from WVU in 1963. From 2001 to 2003, Dr.
Snoderly was a part time Associate Professor at George Mason University School of Management.
He conducted an executive postgraduate level seminar for Chief Information Officers and a course
on Program Management for the GMU Masters of Technology Management program’s 2003 fall
semester. Dr. Snoderly is currently the Program Learning Director of Engineering at the Defense
Acquisition University. His SE acumen is responsible for the development of SE courses as well as
providing instruction on management of the Systems Engineering aspects of the Department of
Defense systems acquisition process. Dr. Snoderly has worked for the US DoD for 50 years. Prior
to joining DSMC (now DAU) in 1979, Professor Snoderly was the Deputy Program Manager for
the U.S. Navy LAMPS MK III Program at the Naval Air Systems Command. Professor Snoderly
has 16 years of engineering and management experience working for the U.S. Navy as a civilian
engineer. His recommendations were instrumental in the development and fielding of the Navy
LAMPS MK III weapons system.

Dr. Kenneth E. Nidiffer has over 55 years of government, industry and academic experience in the
field of software and system engineering. He is Director of Strategic Plans for Government
Programs at the Software Engineering Institute. Ken has successfully executed positions as a senior
vice-president at Fidelity Investments, and head of technical operations/engineering for Northrop
Grumman Corporation. Ken received his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering in 1962 from
Purdue University, Indiana, a M.S. degree in Astronautical Engineering in 1969 from the Air Force
Institute of Technology, Ohio, a MBA degree from Auburn University, Alabama in 1975 and his
D.Sc. in Systems Engineering from George Washington University, in Washington D.C. in 1988.

Richard Beasley joined Rolls-Royce in 1986 with a Physics Degree from Bristol University, and an
MSc in Gas Turbine Engineering from Cranfield University. After working on Integration
Aerodynamics, Safety, Reliability and Life Cycle Engineering, he became the Global Chief of
Systems Engineering and in 2011 was made a Rolls-Royce Associate Fellow in Systems
Engineering. He was part of the BKCASE SEBoK author team, and is the Immediate Past-President
of the UK INCOSE Chapter. He is a Chartered Engineer, Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society,
and a Visiting Fellow to the Systems Centre at Bristol University.

View publication stats