Academic Leadership /

Followership: How to
Change Engineering
Education

Leadership is Not the Problem!

About This Leadership Session
This special session is on Leadership in Academia.
Two keynotes and three responders will look back
and look forward to identify opportunities lost and
opportunities to be seized.
The goal is to transition Systems Engineering to the
status of an indispensable profession.
I (Wolt Fabrycky) hereby conjecture that Systems
Engineering could be first among the engineering
family to achieve full professional status, akin to
architecture, law, and even medicine.
Change Engineering Education !
There is nothing new about that statement.
Calls for change appear continuously - it is the
only constant!
Change is usually expressed in terms of
requirements for what the engineering graduate
must be able to do.
Change emphasizes knowledge as power.
Knowledge as virtue is rarely mentioned.
Leadership Has Been Consistent
Some sources of leadership
ABET - Engineering Accreditation
ASEE - Numerous Studies
NAE - Forums / Working Groups
NRC - Board on Engineering Education
NSF - Centers / Grants / Workshops
NSPE - Professional Policy No. 104
Private Foundations - Fellowships / Grants
 Some Major Studies
ECPD Formed in 1932.
Grinter Report of 1955 resulted in ECPD
prescriptive criteria.
Goals of Engineering Education in 1970’s
led to Professional Schools concept.
Green Report, 1998.
ABET Outcomes Criteria 2000
And Many Minor Ones
Followership is Minimal Because
Academia reacts to internal more than to external
voices.
Academia is not customer and bottom-line driven,
as is industry.
Academia is expected to be the promulgator of the
body of systematic knowledge.
Recommendations for change in engineering
education are usually extensive and all inclusive
and this is the biggest impediment to followership!
Engineering Discipline Structure
Discipline focus provides essential bedrock - this is
both desirable and necessary.
Advances the body of systematic knowledge.
Provides a foundation for the interdisciplines.
Disciplines couples engineering education to the
engineering and basic sciences.
Disciplines are necessary, but no longer sufficient.
Preserve the discipline structure, but overlay with key
interdisciplines !
A Better Balance Must be Achieved

Between the disciplines and interdisciplines.

Both the “warp and the woof”, as in cloth.
Encourage tenured senior faculty to elect dual
affiliation (discourage for beginners).
Interdisciplinary growth path for faculty.
Research balance is needed too.
Publish / practice and prosper!
 Consider the Continuum
With bracketing pairs of words or phrases:
Research / Development
Analysis / Synthesis
Depth / Breadth
Specialists / Generalists
Words on the left describe Specialty or
Domain Engineering.
Words on the right describes General or
Systems Engineering.
Systems Engineering is Evolving as
an Interdiscipline in Academia
But, acceleration thereof requires a dual track
degree structure with:
Preparation for Teaching and Research -
the MS / PhD (Academia, Research, Labs, ...).
Preparation for Professional Practice -
the MEng / DEng (Industry, Government, ...).
Equivalency is the desideratum - relevant
factors need to be identified and evaluated.
Systems Engineering Centric Programs

There are 51 distinct degree programs at the basic

and advanced level in the Systems Engineering
Centric group (Category I).
Included are only those programs where the major is
designated as Systems Engineering.
These SE Programs are offered by 34 institutions.
The current count by program level is:

BS MS PhD
Program count 11 + 31 + 9 Total = 51
Domain Centric SE Programs
There are 73 distinct degree programs in the
Domain Centric Systems Engineering group
(Category II). These programs are at the basic or
advanced level with the major designated as X
and Systems Engineering, Systems and X
Engineering, etc.
These Programs are offered by 38 institutions
(some duplicate the Category I institutions).
The offerings exist across several engineering
domains, summarized as follows:
 Domain Centric SE Programs
Domain Centric SE Program BS MS PhD
SE with Computer Engineering 3
SE with Control Engineering 1 1
SE with Electrical Engineering
5

SE with Industrial Engineering 15 23 8

SE with Management Engineering 1 3
SE with Manufacturing
1 11 1
Engineering
Totals 18 46 9 73
 SE Exists Mainly at the Advanced
Level Within Academic Institutions
Of the 51 programs in the SE Centric group:
Only 11, or 22%, exist at the basic level.
Thus, 78% are advanced level programs.
This 3 out of 4 ratio also applies to the Domain Centric
SE group of 73 programs.
-------------
This pattern is quite similar to that found among the
recognized professions of architecture, law, and
medicine.
 Immediate INCOSE Objectives
Continue to encourage adoption of professional attributes
within SE Centric and Domain Centric SE programs at the
basic and advanced levels.
Continue efforts to attain participating body status within
ABET and begin preparation for INCOSE participation in
SE accreditation activity.
Support certification and licensing initiatives as they may
relate to the SE academic enterprise.
____________

Attainment of these objectives will make INCOSE

a good follower, but not an outstanding leader.
 Academic Leadership:
An Important INCOSE Goal
Adoption of the following objectives will help
INCOSE emerge as a recognized leader among
professional engineering societies worldwide:

Initiate an effort to establish SE as an international

interdiscipline, with preparation for professional
practice attained via study at the advanced level.

Begin developing a means to provide worldwide

INCOSE certification of noteworthy professional
academic programs in Systems Engineering.