SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND INFORMATION

ENGINEERING

EEET 2025 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 2

PROJECT PROCESS DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT

Student Name: ullash tiwari

ID: 100046599
Introduction:
Systems engineering 2E was quite a different subject, compared to the normal
engineering courses I have undertaken before, as I believe it was the first subject that
actually showed how a real-life project works. I often heard about the “real-world” were
people from different backgrounds would come together to work in an environment that
was out of their normal habit.

The “real world” according to some of my older friends that already got their degrees,
was quite different to the team work which I been accustom to, you know the good old
days were a couple of friends would join up together to get a science practical out of the
way, were one person would do the typing, the other would do the experimenting, and the
last would put it all together. The “real world” is a bit more complex then trying to just
split up the workload into equal parts.
The process used by the large group to develop the
system concept:
Upon the Second tutorial, we told that we had a tutor-wide project about
Following the discovery that the sea bed near Victor harbour is not interesting for
undersea tours, Sealink has decided to diversity into offering joy flights to “space”. They
require a complete system to provide this service, based within four hours driving time of
Adelaide.
Your task is to provide a plan for the complete solution to this need.

This seemed quite a complicated task, as there were quite numerous questions asked
straight away like
“What does sea link want with space?”
“How the hell you define a joyride.”
“Space??? Is that in space like 100k in the air or space as in an empty place?”

To tackle this problem we were broken up into four subgroups (safety/ tech/ non-
tech/systems aspects), this was done by random which I suggested to the tutor, so I was
put into safety with three other students, who I had never met before. After the
formalities, we (the safety group) instantly started to lead the other groups in a kind of
group leader role, sometimes bossing their views rather then listening to the group as a
whole.

We went straight into action by making a timeline on the board and making deadlines and
also which group would be in charge of compiling each major document (for example the
needs document, the requirements, the subsystems etc) we also decided that we should all
have a go at doing minutes, with the aim being that everyone does their fair share of the
workload.
The process used by your group to develop your group
contribution
The process used by our group to develop our group contribution was just split the
workload into even workloads, but this only happened to the first couple of documents, as
we were one member short due he having to go overseas, so we were quite a
disadvantage compared to the other teams with some having four or five members. And
Safety was a very important role to the overall system.

The biggest problem I felt that was my group had no synergy: a group whose combined
effect was suppose to be greater than the sum of their individual effects. It’s the
difference between thinking linearly (2+2=4) and geometrically (2x2=4, oh wait). To the
inexperienced, synergy is impossible. How can 3 people, working together, produce more
work than 5 individuals? There are at least three ways: trust, communication and pride.

Trust: If we share a foxhole and I trust you to watch my back, I can apply 100% of my
resources to the problem at hand. My focus is greater because you are there. It may also
turn out that my task, reading a map in Hindi, is something you can do better than I. If I
trust you to read the map (while I watch your back, of course) you can do in seconds
what would have taken me hours. And then if we switch, I watch your back, or translate
your Chinese map for you, we both work much faster at our individual tasks that possible
alone. With enough trust we are both willing to make sacrifices for the other without fear
and can work faster than others, even when under stress.

Communication: In nearly every war movie there’s a scene where a unit of troops is
directed into action by their sergeant, using only hand signals. They talk, ask short
questions, and confirm orders with a few short movements of fingers and palms. If they
do it right, they all move with complete understanding of each other’s movements and
can predict where everyone will be and what their responsibilities are. Communication is
leverage: a team of people can act with the clarity and speed of a single mind. And when
there is doubt or disagreement, it’s the quality of communication that enables quick
negotiations and improved decisions.

Pride: We are social creatures. We work harder when we know others are depending on
us. Good teams merge self respect with respect for the team. People want to do well not
only so they look good, but so the entire team looks good. There is a new kind of pride
that is larger than any individual and if it’s done right, it feels better to help the team
succeed than it does to succeed alone.

These three things, trust, communication, and pride are obvious in the abstract, but
difficult to practice. I believe, we had a lot of trust and pride but very poor
communication. Like for example I was allocated to do some requirements on
maintenance, and I had completed it within the set time frame but rather then me passing
this on the team leader, I sent it straight to the group that was compiling the document,
two weeks later I receive a email saying where is the work…when I already sent it to the
group.
Comparison of the group dynamics in the two contexts and the
effect that this had on the outcome

how certain team members automatically assumed that they are leaders and everyone is
their follower. We’re all servants to our egos but it’s the talented that have the greatest
risk of slavery. If they’re not careful their self image can be constructed around their
ability to perform: a shaky foundation for anyone’s psychology. If their emotional lives
have no other sources of positive validation they will sacrifice everything, health, friends,
dignity, sanity, to maintain their self-image about their work. Many young stars are at
risk: they haven’t sorted out yet the difference between being talented and being
successful (or happy) and they can become unpredictable when that gap in their
psychology is challenged.

The common first traps stars, and their managers, face are to disregard trust and
communication in the name of talent. A star may flinch at trusting others since he
believes he can do better himself: to trust someone with less talent (in his mind) is to
waste his own. Communication and negotiation, hallmarks of good teams, may also put
the star in uncomfortable situations where his talent (and his self-identity) is questioned.
The trap is sprung as soon as the team leader offers a star a special set of rules. Special
rules violate the trust of the team. The focus shifts away from team success to personal
pride and the manager must spend time managing egos, instead of progress. Like a brick
thrown against a windshield, special rules fracture teams into small dangerous parts, the
effects of which can be impossible to repair.

It’s up to the manager to fuel the star’s ego in the same way as the rest of the team:
through doing work that helps towards group success. Instead of special rules, the
rewards should be based on performance towards goals.

•
Insights that you have obtained concerning working in small groups

• Lack of knowledge about the project:

• Meeting not everyone been able to make the same time
• If someone was not pulling their weight, how you approach this in a professional
manner.
Insights that you have obtained concerning working in small
groups
• Bad organisation
• The productivity of the teamwork
• The team meetings, the members were always focus too much on some point
which was useless, and can not make the discussions.
The extent to which the tutorial process has achieved
the objectives of the course
I believe that the tutorial process had achieved all the objectives of the course; it showed
us what exactly is need within us to get up and take the lead of a small group and the
pressures of a timeline and sharing our options with your peers.

It also bought out the best of us as projects enable better learning by having us learn from
each other, motivate each other, rely on each other, have to work at agreed-upon times,
self-conduct. Which are skills that last a lifetime.
Conclusion:
Systems engineering 2E has been quite a eye-opener for me, as it really was one the first
subjects I taken, where at the end, I didn’t question whether
“Will I ever use this when I graduate?”
It has taught quite a lot like conflict management and how to act in a group in a
professional manner, and especially what to expect when I graduate, as all this time I was
thinking that when I join a company, it will all fresh young stars straight out of uni all
thinking the same as Me. But this is not the case, and I will put in a group with people of
all ages and different backgrounds.