Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Richard Beasley,
Global Chief of Systems Engineering,
Associate Fellow Systems Engineering
Rolls-Royce plc
Richard.beasley@rolls-royce.com
Copyright 2012 Rolls-Royce plc. Published and used by INCOSE with permission.
Introduction
This paper starts with a brief explanation of the value of Systems Thinking, and a rationale
for why this aspect of Systems Engineering needs more attention than other aspects
possibly because of the apparent difficulty in doing it.
A deeper analysis of the reasons for the difficulty in doing Systems Thinking is presented in
two sections. Firstly there is the nature of the human mind, in which Systems Thinking is not,
usually, natural. Secondly the current state of Engineering, Programme Management and
Systems Engineering itself create barriers.
Having introduced reasons why doing Systems Thinking is hard and difficult, the paper
introduces suggestions on how to improve its deployment, and create better understanding of
its place within the broader Engineering activities.
Foundation work on Systems Thinking, especially Systems Dynamics can be traced back to a
number of sources e.g. the work of von Bertalanffy, Forrester and Sterman - for example
see (Bertalanffy, 1969) on System Theory, (Forrester, 1961) and (Sterman, 2011) for Systems
Dynamics.
In the training given in Rolls-Royce (Burge, 2011) it is argued that the benefit of Systems
Engineering (especially as pre-work) is to prevent expensive rework and undesirable
(sometime catastrophic) consequences from unwanted emergence. The causes of rework are:
a) Over-sensitivity to variation which can be addressed by design for 6 sigma
techniques, looking at causes (and then control) of variation that affect critical to
quality (CTQ) attributes. CTQs have to be elicited using Systems Engineering (and
Systems Thinking particularly to get functionality).
b) Sub-optimization either focusing on a single attribute to the detriment of others, or
(more commonly) concentrating on designing parts rather than systems.
c) Failure to recognise dynamic effects making mistaken assumptions of static
properties of system behavior.
Beasley and Partridge (2011) argued that there can be a lack of focus on Systems Thinking.
Figure 1, from that paper, shows the need for a balance between being systematic,
application of correct process as propounded in the INCOSE SE handbook (Hamelin,
Walden, Krueger, 2010), and being systemic applying Systems Thinking.
No invention / rework
Good
process
Being
Systematic
Poor
Process
No control
Being Systemic
Figure 1 balance of systematic / systemic (from Beasley and Partridge, 2011)
It is the authors strong belief (which will be expanded below) that, of these two, Systems
Thinking is the hardest. That is not to underestimate the importance of developing and
implementing the right lifecycle view and being systematic. However, the focus of this paper
will be on the difficulty of being systemic, and so how to move to the right on Figure 1.
Many of the ideas in this section are a synthesis from three specific books - The Black Swan
(Tesser, 2007), the Logic of Failure (Dorner, 1996), and Irrationality (Sutherland, 1992).
Direct quotes are specifically referenced, but take these as general references for this section.
system, and the inability to recognise the delays natural in a system. This is covered in detail
in p128-137, where Dorner explains an experiment where participants are asked to change a
regulator (with numbers that do not correspond to thermometer readings) to maintain a
constant temperature in a chilled store room. The temperature in the storeroom is not
immediately responsive to the climate control system there is a delay that can lead to
oscillations in the temperature. The proper course would be to try and work out the time
constant. Instead, many participants go to if temperature too low give maximum heating, if
too high maximum cooling, and get wild oscillations. Some hypothesised that the failure to
control the temperature was down to some malevolent deception by the experiment director.
This difficulty with dynamic behaviours is an example of a tendency to over-generalize from
experience, and to not be able to process all information available.
Changing is hard
It is well recognised that making change in organisations is hard. The Kotter change model
(Kotter, 2002) is part of the structure the author is applying to the plan to implement Systems
Engineering into Rolls-Royce. A couple of difficulties are described below:
a) Creating a sense of urgency. This is difficult when the company is successful, and
actually being held up as a exemplar of how business in the UK should develop.
b) There is a danger that the change can be seen as a revolution (create the urgency, and
so need change) which can throw out the baby with the bath water. Systems Thinking
is an addition to standard engineering, not a replacement so we need to avoid
appearing to want to remove all that is good currently (and there is plenty without it
Rolls-Royce would not be the company it currently is).
So when we set out to change we must remember the important things we wish to retain so
beware of turning the sense of urgency into a (wrong) sense of crisis.
that Systems Engineering is seen to be trying to become a new breed of specialist. Instead,
Systems Engineering is a core skill needed in significant levels in many Engineering roles.
Therefore many Engineering roles (for example Chief Design Engineer) could legitimately be
described as Systems Engineering roles.
The language and techniques of Systems Engineering can be seen as a new breed of magic.
Some of the language / concepts can be seen as alien to an outsider. The author has heard
many criticisms of the difficult interpretation of the terms within Rolls-Royce, to the extent
of once being accused of being wilfully obscure with language.
Systems Thinking is a hard concept to pick up. In Rolls-Royce over 800 individuals have
attended an intensive one week Systems Engineering (with significant focus on Systems
Thinking techniques) training. Examination of what else needs to done to successfully
embed the approach (Dunford et al, tbd) has identified that the training, naturally, does not
give full confidence in the techniques. An analysis of survey results among engineers who
had been on the 5 day training (latest version Burge, 2011) at the Bristol site of Rolls-Royce
(in the Defence division) asked how well the training had prepared them for using the
approach in their work. The scale was 1 = not at all and 10 = completely. In experienced
(i.e had used Systems Engineering considerably) 30% chose 5 and 40% chose 7 for
everyone else the rating of 5 to 8 garnered between 15% and 25% of the vote with no other
options getting more than 10% (Dunford et al, 2012). Thus on the job use of what is
trained increases the appreciation of what is taught. The training (for sensible educational
reasons) is based on relatively simple problems, and an individual is not properly equipped to
use the techniques with confidence in the real world. This is reflected in a negative view of
the perceived time to do Systems Thinking. If done badly (due to inexperience) the
experience can have a negative impact on both this perceived amount of effort, and the view
of the value of the approach and methodology reducing any willingness to persevere and
devote time to learn / understand better (Dunford et al, tbd). Ways around this are discussed
in more detail below in some ideas on how to develop Systems Thinking.
project. However, that is not the best place to learn Systems Thinking. It is proposed that
using Systems Thinking to solve / understand emergent problems on projects in production /
service is a good place to quickly see the benefit as the scope of these issues can be more
bounded.
Resolving in-service
problems
Real world
Project
Type
Major projects
The highest value from SE, but
not the place to learn
No invention / rework
Low chance
No control
Behaviours
The INCOSE competency framework (INCOSE 2010) limits itself to technical competencies
it lacks a consideration of behavior. There is some extant work, for example dstl research
that highlighted the need for emotional intelligence (Maddocks and Rogers, 2006), and a
NASA study (Williams and Derro, 2008) also called for focus on the human dynamics. The
INCOSE Competency Working Group has an intention to focus on the softer skills needed.
Based on the analysis contained above work is needed to ensure that the difficulties in doing
Systems Thinking are addressed. But more work is needed focusing on how to develop
Systems Thinking in SE specialists, in all engineering roles, and within an organisation.
The need for effective leadership buy-in and pull for Systems Thinking cannot be
underestimated. Where there has been real progress in Rolls-Royce this has been enabled by
senior engagement and commitment to communicating that Systems Thinking is key.
Getting the right understanding and then the setting of expectations for Systems Thinking by
the technical leadership is essential. Engineering Director and Chief Engineers, having been
given appreciation of the approach, are now increasingly calling for the use of Systems
Engineering giving momentum to the implementation journey.
Conclusions
Doing Systems Thinking is key to successful Systems Engineering and therefore project
success. Doing Systems Thinking is hard and implementing it into an established (and by
many standards successful) engineering organization is harder still. This paper has reviewed
the root causes behind these difficulties, and suggested some approaches to overcome.
The reasons for the difficulty in doing Systems Thinking are profound and should not be
underestimated. There are two classes of difficulty. The first is the nature of the human
mind which is much more reactive and unwilling to think than we would like. We are preconditioned to jump to conclusions and make inappropriate assumptions. Hence the truth in
the saying common sense is not common. The second reason is the nature of organizations
and the practical empiricism of an engineer. There is a strong need to see progress, and
iterations seem like rework. Organizations like to make neat partitions and so attempting to
introduce an idea that needs to be absorbed across the whole population has significant
challenges.
The first step to implementing Systems Thinking in an organisation is to recognise that it is a
journey, and most likely a long and hard one. Steps have to taken to reduce negative
pressures on effective Systems Practice (purposeful application of Systems Thinking).
Particular enablers identified include:
Ensuring a balance between process (being systematic) which includes getting the
process to recognise the need for Systems Thinking - and for the application of
Systems Thinking (being systemic).
Since a number of the problems in System Thinking are based in personal and
organisational behaviour, then work recognising and developing the right behaviors in
both is still needed.
On the implementation journey, the right leadership to set the expectation that
Systems Thinking WILL be done (because it IS of value) is essential to getting the
momentum to get over the learning and implementation hurdles.
Finally just because doing Systems Thinking and implementing it into an organization is
hard is no reason not to try. The benefits are there to be seized. It is important to manage
expectations, and realise that successful implementation (and so making Systems Engineering
the way engineering is done in an organisation) will be a long journey.
Acknowledgements
I would like to recognise all my Systems Engineering and System Design colleagues in RollsRoyce who have embarked on this difficult journey in particular Darren York, Charlotte
Dunford, Andy Pickard, and recently John Weaver who have helped me develop my ideas,
and challenged me as appropriate. Outside Rolls-Royce, I am heavily indebted to a number
of contacts made through INCOSE. I would especially like to recognise the generous help I
have received from Stuart Burge (Burges, Hughes and Walsh), Hillary Sillitto (Thales), and
Professor Patrick Godfrey (Bristol University).
References
Beasley, R, and Partridge, R. 2011 The Three Ts of Systems Engineering Trading,
Tailoring and Thinking, INCOSE international Symposium, Denver 2011
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von, 1969, General System Theory, George Braziller, New York
Blanchard, B. and Fabrycky,W. 2005 Systems Engineering and Analysis 4th edition, PrenticeHall International
Blockley, D. and Godfrey, P. 2000, Doing it Differently, Systems For Rethinking
Construction, Thomas Telford
Burge, Stuart, 2011, Systems Engineering Short Course, course delivered at Rolls-Royce plc.
Conklin .2006. Wicked Problems And Social Complexity, Cognexus Institute accessed at
www.cognexus.com
Davidz, H.L. & Nightingale, D.J., 2008. Enabling systems thinking to accelerate the
development of senior systems engineers. Systems Engineering, 11(1), pp.1-14. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sys.20081 .
Dorner, Dietrich; 1996 The Logic of Failure Basic books, Perseus Publishing (Originally
published in Germany, in 1989 under the title Die Logik des Misslingens by Rowholt Verlag
GmbH)
Dunford, Charlotte, Yearworth, Mike, York, Darren M, Godfrey, Patrick. tbd. A view of
systems practices enabling Quality in Design. Submitted for publication to Systems
Engineering Journal
Dunford, C.N., Yearworth, M., York, D.M., Godfrey, P., Parsley, A., 2012 Using Systems
Practice to Enable Quality in Design 2012 IEEE International Systems Conference
proceedings, 19-22 March 2012 Vancouver Piscataway, NJ.
Forrester, Jay 1961 Industrial Dynamics Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA
Biography
Richard Beasley graduated with a Physics Degree from Bristol University in 1986, and then
joined Rolls-Royce as an engineer. He spent 14 years in Installation Aerodynamics for
Military Engines, during which time he gained an MSC in Gas Turbine Engineering from
Cranfield University. He then worked on Life Cycle Cost, Reliability and aspects of
designing products for Aftermarket / Service. He is now the Global Chief of Systems
Engineering, which includes being corporate skill owner for Systems Engineering in RollsRoyce, and in 2011 was made a Rolls-Royce Associate Fellow in Systems Engineering. He
is a member of the UK INCOSE chapter, chairs the Bristol Local Group in the UK chapter,
and attends the UKAB as the Rolls-Royce representative. He is a Chartered Engineer, Fellow
of the Royal Aeronautical Society, and a Visiting Fellow to the Systems Centre at Bristol
University.