1 

NASA SYSTEMS ENGINEERING BEHAVIOR STUDY 

Study Leads: 

Christine Williams, NASA HQ and Mary-Ellen Derro, JPL 

October 2008 

NASA Office of the Chief Engineer 
2 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 4 

2.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 4 

2.2 Background........................................................................................................................... 5 

3.0 Methodology............................................................................................................................. 6 

3.1 Behavior Study Approach..................................................................................................... 6 

3.2 Developing the Behavioral Competency Model Framework ............................................... 8 

4.0 Agency Findings ....................................................................................................................... 8 

5.0 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Temperament Results....................................................... 18 

5.1 Description of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator...................................................................... 18 

5.2 MBTI® and Temperament Results..................................................................................... 18 

6.0 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 20 

7.0 Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 21 

8.0 Acknowledgements................................................................................................................. 23 

9.0 References............................................................................................................................... 25 

10.0 Appendices............................................................................................................................ 26 

10.1 Appendix 1 Systems Engineering Interviewees ............................................................... 26 

10.2 Appendix 2 Center Study Team Members........................................................................ 28 

10.3 Appendix 3 MBTI Description ......................................................................................... 29 

10.5 Appendix 4 Center Reports............................................................................................... 31

10.5.1 Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Report ............................................................... 31 

10.5.2 Johnson Space Center (JSC) Report .............................................................................. 31 

10.5.3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Report ........................................................................ 31 

10.5.4 Langley Research Center (LRC) Report........................................................................ 31 

10.5.5 Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Report .............................................................. 31 

10.5.6 Stennis Space Center (SSC) Report............................................................................... 31 
3 

Tables 

Table 1 Behavioral Competency Model Framework...................................................................... 8 

Table 2 NASA SE Behavioral Competency Model – Themes and Competencies......................... 9 

Table 3 Leadership Theme, Competencies and Behaviors........................................................... 10 

Table 4 Attitudes and Attributes Theme, Competencies and Behaviors ...................................... 12 

Table 5 Communication Theme, Competencies, Behaviors......................................................... 14 

Table 6 Problem Solving and Systems Thinking Theme, Competencies and Behaviors............. 16 

Table 7 Technical Acumen Theme, Competencies and Behaviors .............................................. 18 

Table 8 Agency-wide Systems Engineering MBTI® Scores by Temperament ........................... 19 

Table 9 Systems Engineers in NASA SE Behavior Study ........................................................... 23 

Table 10 NASA SE Behavior Study Team Members................................................................... 24 

Table 11 Sponsors, Stakeholders and Supporters of the NASA SE Behavior Study ................... 24 

Table 12 Names of Systems Engineering Interviewees at each NASA Center............................ 26 

Table 13 Center Study Team Members ........................................................................................ 28 

Table 14 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) Mental Processes and Orientations ............... 29 

Table 15 Fixed Mindset vs. Growth Mindset ............................................................................... 30 

Figures 

Figure 1 SE Interview Questions .................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 2 SE Behavior Study Process Milestones............................................................................ 7 

Figure 3 MBTI® Types Occurring in SEs Studied Across the Agency ....................................... 20 
4 

1.0 Executive Summary 

In March 2008, the Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) held a meeting with top NASA Systems 

Engineers (SEs) for the purpose of developing shared understanding and agreement regarding the 

practice of systems engineering across the Agency. As a critical core competency, the effective 

development of SEs is vital to the future of NASA’s success. This development requires an 

understanding of the characteristics or behaviors that enable employees to be highly effective 

SEs. 

This study was conducted to identify the characteristics or behaviors frequently observed in 

highly regarded SEs at NASA. Data from this study will be used to design or update systems 

engineering training, development, coaching and mentoring programs to develop these behaviors 

in SEs. This data will also help NASA Engineering Leadership to more quickly identify and 

support the development of high potential future SE leaders. 

Centers identified “highly regarded Systems Engineers” to participate in a study to determine the 

behaviors that contributed to their success. The selected SEs were individuals that the centers 

determined as the “go to person” with regards to systems engineering. The number of 

interviewees varied by NASA Center. The methodology and protocol for this study mirrored a 

study previously conducted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). 

In spite of the fact that the practice of systems engineering varies across centers, the behaviors of 

highly effective system engineers were very consistent. The consistent behaviors exhibited by 

NASA/JPL highly effective SEs fall into five broad top themes: leadership, attitudes and 

attributes, communication, problem solving and systems thinking, and technical acumen. Within 

each of these broad theme areas, specific descriptors of these behaviors were identified along 

with examples of actual behaviors associated with these theme descriptions. 

The findings of this study provide a firm basis on which to build strong systems engineering 

competencies that will support individual development and program and project needs across 

NASA. The awareness and understanding of these specific behaviors will also help advance the 

field of systems engineering development outside NASA by providing greater focus on the 

human dynamics that, when combined with technical knowledge and abilities, contribute to 

successful engineering projects and mission success. 

2.0 Introduction 

2.1 Purpose 

The purpose of the NASA Systems Engineering Behavior Study is to identify the characteristics 

or behaviors frequently observed in highly regarded SEs at NASA. The information gained from 

this study will be used to accelerate the development of these critical behaviors in this population 

in order to assure mission success and to develop the next generation of highly regarded SEs. 
5 

Data from this study will be used to design or update systems engineering training, development, 

coaching and mentoring programs to develop these behaviors in SEs across the agency. This 

study data will allow NASA to begin to introduce elements of leadership training earlier in the 

training process, thereby helping individuals with a propensity towards systems engineering 

leadership to emerge sooner. 

Knowing specifically which characteristics or behaviors to target for development also provides 

the Agency with a more scientifically based model from which to measure the impact of training 

and development programs and to assess their influence on mission performance. 

Additionally, this study was intended to provide NASA’s Engineering Leadership with a valid 

and reliable template from which to assess employees’ systems engineering capabilities as they 

relate to these behaviors, and to identify areas for development and improvement. 

2.2 Background 

In March 2008, the Office of the Chief Engineer held a meeting with some of NASA’s top SEs 

for the purpose of developing shared understanding and agreement regarding the practice of 

systems engineering across the Agency. Historically there have been many definitions and 

descriptions of systems engineering used across the Agency. In fact, the actual practice of 

systems engineering varies across NASA. However, for the most part, SEs agree that: 

Systems engineering is the art and science of developing an operable system that 

can meet requirements within imposed constraints. It is holistic and integrative 

and incorporates and balances the contributions of structural, electrical 

mechanism-design, and power engineers, plus many other disciplines, including 

systems safety, to produce a coherent whole that no single discipline dominates. 

Systems engineering is about tradeoffs and compromises, about generalists rather 

than specialists. 

Almost all NASA SEs also agree that systems engineering is a critical core competency in 

enabling the current and future success of NASA missions. This study was undertaken to 

understand what core behaviors are needed to build strong systems engineers.

Several actions were initiated at the March 2008 meeting to begin this development process, 

including updating the Academy of Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL) 

curriculum and establishing the Systems Engineering Leadership Development Program 

(SELDP) to enable top SEs to engage in hands-on, developmental “stretch” assignments that 

would broaden and enhance their capabilities. Foundational to these development enhancements 

was an understanding of the systems engineering leadership behaviors that needed to be 

developed in order for SEs to progress from good to great. 

In order to achieve this understanding, NASA initiated a Systems Engineering Behavior Study 

designed to identify the behaviors that separate superior SEs at NASA from average SEs. This 

study looked at 38 “highly regarded” practicing systems engineers to determine the behaviors 

that helped make them successful. 
6 

3.0 Methodology 

3.1 Behavior Study Approach 

The NASA Systems Engineering Working Group (SEWG), the NASA Engineering Management 

Board (EMB) and senior management selected “highly regarded systems engineers” from their 

respective Centers to participate in a study to determine: What are the behaviors of highly 

regarded SEs? The methodology leverages the organizational development expertise and work 

previously done at JPL for the Systems Engineering Advancement (SEA) Project [5], in general, 

and the Systems Engineering On-The-Job Training (OJT) Program [3], [6], in particular. The 

selected SEs were individuals the center determined as the “go to person” with regards to 

systems engineering. The number of interviewees varied by Center. The names of SE 

participants by Center are shown in Table 12 in Appendix 1. 

The Centers, along with NASA APPEL, provided team members for the study. Based on 

availability and the number of SEs to study, several centers provided more than one study team 

member. The technical background of these study team members included training and 

experience in one or more of the following disciplines: engineering, organizational development, 

psychology, and training and development. The names of study team members are shown in 

Appendix 2.

The SEs were interviewed, shadowed and observed by one of the study team members. The 

interviews were conducted in conference rooms or private offices, and were recorded. The 

interviews lasted from one to one-and-a-half hours. The questions were vetted and approved by 

the NASA Chief Engineer prior to the start of the study. Participants were asked the same 

questions, with follow-up questions based on initial answers. The interview questions were 

divided into three categories: context, relation to self and personal awareness, and the future of 

systems engineering. The interview questions are shown in Figure 1 below. 

The shadow process included a minimum of one day of shadowing the SE performing their dayto-day activities. In addition, the study team members were invited to meetings/events the SE 

was either leading or participating in. The events observed included, but were not limited to, 

concept reviews, systems and subsystem reviews, document change reviews, project team 

meetings, Tiger Team meetings, and individual “quiet hours.” 

The interviews were transcribed, and the results were compiled and analyzed for common 

themes. The study team members held a validation and verification (V&V) meeting with the 

interviewees to gain feedback and to make changes as needed. A center report was created 

whenever the center had four or more SEs participating in the study. Centers with reports include 

GSFC, JSC, JPL, LaRC, MSFC and SSC. Data from all the centers, with the exception of KSC, 

has been rolled up into an Agency-wide report. Figure 2 shows these process milestones. 
7 

Context Questions 

1. How would you describe the role of the SE? 

2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is the SE in the success of a program/project? 

Relation to Self and Personal Awareness 

3. Create, in behavioral terms, a statement that would describe you as a SE. 

4. Identify the attitudes and attributes a “highly regarded” SE possesses. 

5. What leadership behaviors does a “highly regarded” SE possess? 

6. As a SE, what leadership abilities do you possess? 

7. On a scale from 1 to 10, how important are these abilities to mission success? 

8. How are these abilities displayed? 

9. What general knowledge does a “highly regarded” SE possess? 

10. On a scale from 1 to 10, how important is this knowledge to mission success? 

11. What values drive you as a leader? 

12. How are these values reflected in your attitude? 

13. Describe what goes on in your mind when you are problem solving. 

Projecting Forward 

14. What do you look for in determining if someone will make a good SE?

15. How will the job of an SE be different 10 years from now? 

16. What will the future SE need to know and do differently? 

 Figure 1 SE Interview Questions 

Figure 2 SE Behavior Study Process Milestones 

SEWG and 

EMB identify 

and engage SEs 

to participate in 

study 

Centers and 

APPEL provide 

center study 

leads 

Study leads 

train on process 

and 

methodology 

Team members 

interview, 

shadow and 

observe SEs 

Interview 

content coded 

for theme ID. 

MBTI 

completed and 

interpreted 

Team members 

analyze data; 

build an initial 

SE behavioral 

competency 

model 

V&V held with 

SEs. 

Center 

behavioral 

competency 

model built and 

Center report

completed 

Center study 

leads meet to 

analyze 

Agency-wide 

data. 

NASA-wide 

SE behavioral 

competency 

model built 

SEs invited to 

provide 

feedback on 

behavioral 

competencies

model 

NASA 

Agency-wide 

report 

completed 

Information 

used to advance 

the 

understanding 

of systems 

engineering 

behaviors 

throughout 

NASA 
8 

3.2 Developing the Behavioral Competency Model Framework 

Three levels of behaviors were identified as described in Table 1. The data was grouped into top 

behavioral competencies with middle competencies and associated behaviors. This process was 

done at the center level as well. 

Table 1 Behavioral Competency Model Framework 

4.0 Agency Findings 

The behaviors exhibited by NASA’s highly valued SEs fall into five broad top themes with 

associated competencies and their observable behaviors. The broad themes are leadership, 

attitudes and attributes, communication, problem solving and systems thinking, and technical 

acumen, as shown in Table 2. The findings are known as the NASA Systems Engineering 

Behavioral Competency Model. The detailed behaviors associated with the themes and 

competencies are shown by theme in Table 3 through Table 7 below. 

Level Description Example 

Top: 

Themes 

Collections of 

competencies 

Attitudes and Attributes

Middle: 

Competencies 

Aggregations of related 

observable behaviors 

Seeks information and uses the art of questioning

Lowest: 

Actual Behaviors 

Observable behaviors Asks difficult questions of discipline or subsystem 

experts regarding boundaries, conditions, and 

assumptions to ensure continuity across all systems, 

and to ensure the proposed solution is an integrated 

solution and fundamentally makes sense 
9 

Table 2 NASA SE Behavioral Competency Model – Themes and Competencies 

Top Level Themes Middle Competencies 

Leadership Appreciates/Recognizes Others 

Builds Team Cohesion 

Understands the Human Dynamics of a Team 

Creates Vision and Direction 

Ensures System Integrity 

Possesses Influencing Skills 

Sees Situations Objectively 

Coaches and Mentors 

Delegates 

Ensures Resources are Available 

Attitudes & Attributes Remains Inquisitive and Curious 

Seeks Information and Uses the Art of Questioning 

Advances Ideas 

Gains Respect Credibility, and Trust 

Possesses Self-Confidence 

Has a Comprehensive View 

Possesses a Positive Attitude and Dedication to Mission Success 

Is Aware of Personal Limitations 

Adapts to Change and Uncertainty 

Uses Intuition/ Sensing 

Is Able to Deal with Politics, Financial Issues, and Customer Needs 

Communication Listens Effectively and Translates Information 

Communicates Effectively Through Personal Interaction 

Facilitates an Environment of Open and Honest Communication 

Uses Visuals to Communicate Complex Interactions 

Communicates Through Story Telling and Analogies 

Is Comfortable with Making Decisions 

Problem Solving & 

Systems Thinking

Identifies the Real Problem 

Assimilates, Analyzes, and Synthesizes Data 

Thinks Systemically 

Has the Ability to Find Connections and Patterns Across the System 

Sets Priorities 

Keeps the Focus on Mission Requirements 

Possesses Creativity and Problem Solving Abilities 

Validates Facts, Information and Assumptions 

Remains Open Minded and Objective 

Draws on Past Experiences 

Manages Risk 

Technical Acumen Possesses Technical Competence and Has Comprehensive Previous Experience 

Learns from Successes and Failures 
10 

Table 3 Leadership Theme, Competencies and Behaviors

Middle 

Competencies 

Actual Behaviors 

Appreciates/ 

Recognizes Others 

• Articulates the relevance of the team’s work and its overall contribution 

to the success of the program and organization. 

• Fairly represents individual and team contributions and gives credit 

where credit is due. Acknowledges work performed by others and 

verbally expresses appreciation. 

Builds Team 

Cohesion 

• Knows that resolving differing opinions is important to clarify the 

problem and foster better understanding. Works to ensure vigorous 

debate is allowed among people with different views, goals, and 

objectives to build a common framework. 

• Establishes healthy relationships to foster team cohesion, strong mission 

focus, and system perspective by asking team members to provide input 

and voice concerns. 

• Models open, non-defensive behavior with others. 

• Notices when others are uncomfortable and communicates acceptance 

with open, relaxed inquiry by making positive, encouraging comments 

to others throughout meetings. 

Understands the 

Human Dynamics of 

a Team 

• Motivates team by consistently communicating progress and 

understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by the system 

design. 

• Supports team’s success by consistently asking: How can I help you? 

What do you need to succeed? What tools do you need to do your job? 

• Ensures that all the disciplines interact and work together by meeting 

regularly and communicating progress often. 

• Genuinely respects people and their talents by encouraging and 

challenging them to do their best work. 

• Understands that people assimilate information differently. Builds 

rapport with others by adapting communication styles appropriate for 

the recipients. 

• Builds upon past experiences in successfully leading various systems 

engineering teams. 

Creates Vision and 

Direction 

• Keeps the team on track by holding a big picture view of what needs to 

be accomplished in order to reach mission requirements. 

• Listens to the assessments and concerns of all team members realizing 

each person has a point of view that is important to them, and 

continually reminds them of the higher goal. 

• Ensures each team member understands their roles and responsibilities. 

• Articulates to the team what constitutes system and mission success and 

their relationship to each other. 

Ensures System 

Integrity 

• Understands the integrity of the system is a primary role. Makes system 

planning decisions accordingly, reporting unacceptable project risks to 

senior management. 

• Accepts responsibility for the performance of the system. Serves as the 

focal point for blame and criticism when problems occur with system 

performance. 

Possesses 

Influencing Skills 

• Understands the political forces that affect the project and disseminates 

the relevant information to subsystem engineers and others, as needed. 
11 

• Influences actions of personnel not under their direct management 

control by creating synergy among and with people. 

• Builds a base of contacts, information sources, knowledge, and expertise 

that may be called upon at various stages of the project. Invests the time 

and effort necessary to build this resource network. 

Sees Situations 

Objectively 

• Assumes responsibility for own actions without blaming others for 

mistakes or misrepresenting one’s self. 

• Understands some of the best ideas can come from a mix of people. 

Does not assume there is only one right answer. 

• Remains objective so as not to be hindered by irrelevant, outside 

influences. 

Coaches and 

Mentors 

• Coaches and mentors team members and less experienced systems 

engineers to develop the breadth and depth of their competencies by 

giving specific positive and negative feedback for developmental 

purposes. 

• Recognizes “high potential” individuals by understanding and 

identifying the presence of skills and traits needed to be successful in the 

field. 

• Challenges individuals to do their best work by giving assignments that 

build their capabilities. 

• Asks questions that challenge assumptions, validate conclusions, and 

explore thought processes. 

• Promotes a team culture that places a greater priority on the performance 

of the system than the performance of its subsystems. 

Delegates • Delegates responsibility and authority to the lowest possible levels while 

retaining control of subsystem requirements and system integration 

functions. 

• Builds confidence among team members by delegating responsibility 

and decision-making authority to subsystem leads and then accepting the 

decisions they make without resistance or second-guessing. 

Ensures Resources 

are Available 

• Ensures that the team has the right tools, knowledge, and resources in 

order to get the job done. 

• Keeps abreast of current analytical tools and models by knowing where 

to find them, when to apply them, and how to use them. 

• Utilizes data archiving tools and processes to organize, simplify, and 

distribute information effectively. Ensures that the information team 

members use to make decisions and coordinate activities is reliable and 

trustworthy. Uses formal channels of communication to place 

reasonable limits on the number of people from whom information is 

gathered. 
12 

Table 4 Attitudes and Attributes Theme, Competencies and Behaviors 

Middle 

Competencies 

Actual Behaviors 

Remains Inquisitive 

and Curious 

• Is naturally inquisitive and curious, and is largely driven by that curiosity. 

Is fearless and has an authentic and persistent desire to understand how 

everything works and how it relates to everything else. Can quickly 

connect dots and identify weak spots. 

• Seeks to understand the big picture and interrelationship of the parts. 

Moves without boundaries from one topic to another, to discover what else 

needs to be known, what might be overlooked. 

• Actively explores the technical issues, concepts, and lexicon of subsystem 

disciplines that are less familiar and comfortable. 

Seeks Information 

and Uses the Art of 

Questioning 

• Asks difficult questions of discipline or subsystem experts regarding 

boundaries, conditions, and assumptions to ensure continuity across all 

systems and to ensure that the proposed solution is an integrated solution 

and fundamentally makes sense. 

• Asks questions, at appropriate times and in various ways, to ensure 

consistency of answers and to reveal if others understand what constitutes 

system success. Probes an area if inconsistency is revealed. 

• Asks questions artfully. Uses a series of questions that build upon each 

other to help identify the root of a problem or solutions. 

• Asks “Why?” “Why did we decide to do it that way?” “What were the 

alternative solutions, and did we do trade studies that helped us determine 

why this was the best solution?” 

• Confident in knowing what they do know and willing to state it and admit 

what is not known; seeks specialists to fill in missing pieces. 

Advances Ideas • Restates, reframes, and clarifies others’ questions to ensure understanding 

among group members by questioning and measuring an idea against 

system requirements. 

• Fosters open two-way discussions. Brainstorms with others to solicit 

various viewpoints. Allows and encourages people to state opinions while 

listening for connections and disconnects in logic. 

• Engages the team by explaining how the solution or approach was 

reached. 

Gains Respect 

Credibility, and 

Trust 

• Uses respectful tone, words and body language. 

• Follows through on commitments and serves as an advocate for the team. 

• Demonstrates understanding and appreciation of the challenges others 

face. 

• Earns the respect of team members by demonstrating personal integrity. 

Conducts business in an honest and trustworthy manner by avoiding 

deception and treating team members fairly. 

• Sees trust of self and others as a pervasive element required to achieve 

success. 

• Earns trust and respect of others by having a strong understanding of the 

system’s technical requirements and assigns work based on the 

individual’s skills and abilities. Understands that not everyone is an “A 

player”. 

• Lets team members do their job. Tells them what has to be done, but not 

how to do it. 
13 

Possesses SelfConfidence • Willing to speak up, regardless of who is present to ensure the most 

technically sound decision is made for the good of the overall system. 

• Demonstrates a positive attitude and exhibits confidence. 

• Sits back and listens to group discussions while building models and 

connections and/or identifying disconnects. 

Has a 

Comprehensive 

View 

• Takes responsibility for the whole life-cycle, the whole system and all its 

parts. Understands the whole job and that it is never done. 

• Strikes a balance between what must happen to obtain success and what 

must not happen to avert failure. 

Possesses a Positive 

Attitude and 

Dedication to 

Mission Success 

• Encourages a success oriented environment by displaying passion, 

excitement and enthusiasm about the work and the challenges faced by the 

system. 

• Is dedicated to mission success by working until the job is successfully 

completed even if that means working long hours to ensure the job is 

done. 

• Creates a “can do” atmosphere by providing positive feedback and is 

empathetic toward team members. Encourages others with their “can do” 

attitude. 

Is Aware of Personal 

Limitations 

• Seeks guidance from experts. Knows what they know and what they don’t 

know and seeks others to fill in missing data. 

• Acknowledges technical limitations to others. Does this with ease. 

Adapts to Change 

and Uncertainty 

• Presses on with the project and ensures that the implications of change are 

addressed throughout the entire system in the face of ever-changing 

requirements. 

• May make decisions with incomplete or imperfect data. 

• Understands that change is inevitable and takes appropriate actions 

quickly. May assemble other technical experts to brainstorm various 

avenues and approaches to support the change. 

• Remains calm under pressure. Looks at things pragmatically and 

understands what's going on. Doesn't over-react. 

Uses Intuition/ 

Sensing 

• Uses both intuition and sensing when evaluating a problem or making a 

decision. Does not rely solely on data. May use of "gut feeling" if data is 

inconclusive. 

• Moves concepts and ideas easily through artificial boundaries. Uses 

intuition and the senses to penetrate the system and discover or synthesize 

solutions to a problem. 

Is Able to Deal with 

Politics, Financial 

Issues, and 

Customer Needs 

• Is politically savvy. Understands the larger forces at work. Studies the 

political and financial issues and impacts. 

• Shares and uses knowledge and expertise that shapes the political and 

financial environment in positive ways. 

• Balances tasks and deliverables against resources and designs processes 

that save time and money. 

• Possesses the ability to interface with the customer and successfully lead 

discussions to create an understanding of system status across various 

levels, both up, down and across. 
14 

Table 5 Communication Theme, Competencies, Behaviors 

Middle 

Competencies 

Actual Behaviors 

Listens Effectively 

and Translates 

Information 

• Sees the system from various perspectives. Listens and acts as translator 

between parties (subsystems, Project, vendors and other customers), 

ensuring each gets the necessary information from others. 

• Communicates project status to management and other key internal and 

external stakeholders. Clearly communicates requirements to providers of 

the subsystem elements. 

• Is an excellent listener. Is keenly aware of what is being said and of 

omissions. Listens for themes that continue to surface. Then there comes 

a point where the SE will begin to penetrate by asking questions. If 

questions are not adequately answered, the SE will begin to focus on the 

potential soft spot. 

• Listens to identify critical elements or parameters of the problem. Listens 

for information that leads to connections between system elements and 

information that disrupts connections. 

• Clarifies and simplifies ideas under discussion by offering and/or 

requesting "summation" statements. 

Communicates 

Effectively 

Through Personal 

Interaction 

• Consistently communicates progress and gains understanding from others 

on what challenges and successes are faced by the systems design. May 

meet face to face on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, to ensure everyone is 

in the loop understand the systems requirements. 

• Prefers personal interaction over e-mail. Uses face-to-face interaction as a 

primary communication channel to hear concerns, share information, build 

rapport, create buy-in and create relationships within a team. 

• Communicates in a clear and concise manner. 

• Facilitates effective communication in team meetings and throughout the 

project by regularly interacting with people on the team and getting them 

together to ensure everyone is up-to-date. 

Facilitates an 

Environment of 

Open and Honest 

Communication 

• Welcomes divergent opinions by creating an atmosphere where team 

members feel the freedom to openly express their opinions. Encourages 

and respects differing opinions in order to drive convergence on decisions. 

• Promotes open, honest communication by asking questions, protecting 

proprietary information, protecting minority opinions, and incorporating 

valuable ideas that are shared in the system design. Identifies and takes 

steps to remove communication barriers that are unique to particular 

individuals or groups. 

• Patiently listens to each of the team members/discipline experts in order to 

assure that everyone gets heard--that all diverse and dissenting opinions 

are considered. Listens to all who want to speak, does not communicate 

irritation and does not shut people down. 

• Effectively facilitate teams, meetings and disagreements. Asks clarifying, 

probing and penetrating questions to ensure all information is out on the 

table. 

• Demonstrates accessibility and approachability by having an open door 

policy. 

Uses Visuals to 

Communicate 

• Graphically pulls together ideas, issues, and observations to better 

understand and explain all systems and interfaces and to solve complex 
15 

Complex 

Interactions 

problems. Uses visuals, such as Venn diagrams, models, pictures, charts, 

metaphors, archetypes, and other relevant representations, to communicate 

complex problems or to display the interconnections of sub-elements. 

• Keeps everyone involved by keeping accurate records of big and small 

picture aspects affecting the system and distributing information in 

advance. 

Communicates 

Through Story 

Telling and 

Analogies 

• Uses personnel experiences to build connections and provide explanations 

by using engineering and non-engineering stories and analogies. For 

example, creates analogies from historical events, everyday experiences 

and “life lessons” to better explain concepts and ideas to others. 

• Shares experiences and “lessons learned” with others to support future 

systems design. 

Is Comfortable 

with Making 

Decisions 

• Makes decisions in a confident and timely manner when appropriate – 

with or without complete or optimal information – allowing team 

members to maintain forward progress on their assigned tasks. 

• Carefully monitors the impact of decisions on system performance, 

backtracking and changing direction if necessary. When the team's 

forward progress is not at stake, the SE may choose to postpone decisionmaking and engage in more detailed analysis. 

• Stays on point until ideas are heard, recognizes when enough data is 

gathered to make a decision, and then moves on. Willing to revisit 

decision if new data warrants it. 

• Makes difficult or unpopular decisions, keeping the best interest of the 

system in mind, weighing the potential risks to team cohesion and 

interpersonal relationships against system performance. 
16 

Table 6 Problem Solving and Systems Thinking Theme, Competencies and Behaviors 

Middle 

Competencies 

Actual Behaviors 

Identifies the Real 

Problem 

• Identifies the critical problem to be solved by asking questions and 

identifying the key requirements. 

• Recognizes what is technically right among many good ideas by viewing a 

problem across system boundaries and comparing each design to the other. 

• Frames the problem in a logical way and identifies resources required to 

solve the problem efficiently. 

• Solves problems with the team by listening for the issue, pinpoints 

problem areas, makes recommendations, and then steps out. Avoids side 

trips and unnecessary minutiae and focuses on important issues. 

Assimilates, 

Analyzes, and 

Synthesizes Data 

• Assimilates and distills large quantities of data and ensures all of the data 

is on the table to solve a problem or make a decision. Ensures decisions 

made are supported with data. 

• Breaks data into smaller pieces or parameters, prioritizes the parameters, 

then synthesizes the data to reach an answer or solution. 

• Has the ability to rapidly recall data. 

• Approaches and solves problems in a systematic manner by using tools, 

processes, procedures in order to find solutions. 

Thinks 

Systemically 

• Looks across the entire system and facilitates trades and compromises to 

get a balanced design. Ensures that the integrity of the system as a whole 

does not suffer because of over optimizing any of the smaller pieces. 

• Sees multi-view representations of systems to understand how the pieces 

fit together and interact. Visualizes systems in 3-D. Draws a picture in his 

or her mind, or on paper. 

• Is able to look deep enough into a problem without losing focus on the big 

picture. Sees the big picture while at the same time demonstrating an 

overall awareness of the details. 

• Breaks the problem down into smaller manageable parts. 

• Understands how the system works, what it was designed to do, its 

functions and requirements. Is able to analyze the systems data. Traces 

implications of a problem in a step-by-step manner across the system. 

Has the Ability to 

Find Connections 

and Patterns Across 

the System 

• Integrates and provides a connection between the various engineering 

segments of the project. Is able to identify connections from separate 

elements of the project that others would not notice and brings these 

connections to the team's attention as a means to assist in solving 

underlying issues. 

• Examines and explores the implications of how technical decisions being 

made affect the bigger system architecture. Sees the ripple effect of 

changing requirements or making changes to any element of the system. 

• Able to see system interfaces. Identifies the impact that changes to one 

sub-system are having--or might have--on other sub-systems. Locates and 

corrects sub-system 'disconnects' or 'inconsistencies' that are having a 

negative impact on system performance. 

Sets Priorities • Sets technical priorities in order to maintain the balance for the problems 

at hand while achieving system requirements. 

Keeps the Focus on 

Mission 

• Is focused on developing a system that meets the end-item product 

objectives and does not lose sight of this while integrating the pieces of the 
17 

Requirements system into the whole system. 

• Studies, understands, and articulates the project’s overall objectives. 

Knows what the system must do and be in order to accomplish its 

objectives. 

• Sets technical priorities with principal investigator and subsystem 

engineers to achieve system requirements. 

Possesses 

Creativity and 

Problem Solving 

Abilities 

• Enjoys and is energized by fully concentrating on a problem for long 

stretches, until solutions are formed and implemented. Possesses passion 

for problem solving. 

• Takes the initiative to solve the problems. 

• Solves problems with the team by listening to the issues, pinpointing 

problem areas, making technical recommendations; may help implement 

the solution. 

• Does not adhere to rigid rules or formulas for system design, but may 

create new ideas and approaches that are necessary to deal successfully 

with system constraints. 

Validates Facts, 

Information and 

Assumptions 

• Breaks data into smaller pieces or parameters. Prioritizes the parameters 

then synthesizes the data to reach an answer or solution by examining 

system and sub-system operations in minute detail. Recognizing that 

seemingly minor miscalculations can lead to significant problems in 

system performance. 

• Questions all assumptions that go into the design. 

• Looks for, and anticipates, problems or issues in the system in places that 

may not be covered with the right kind of data to make a decision. 

• Looks for answers that may not be readily apparent from just looking at 

the data alone. Does not rely solely on data. 

Remains Open 

Minded and 

Objective 

• Receptive to hearing diverse/varying opinions. Is willing to re-think/rework an issue or to change direction when new information or a better idea 

is presented. 

• Evaluates decisions objectively. Maintains flexibility by avoiding 

'ownership' of a particular strategy or point of view. 

Draws on Past 

Experiences 

• Draws from his or her hands-on experiences to develop the proper feel for 

succeeding on future projects, knowing when something looks "right" 

versus "not even close“ from past successes and failures. 

• Solves problems with a balance of innovative developments and proven 

heritage products. May rely on experience and existing design as guides, 

but sees each opportunity as a canvas to design new solutions. 

• Uses experience, history, intuition, and sensing in order to assess the 

situation and develop a solution. 

Manages Risk • Uses past experiences to anticipate potential problems that may impact 

system performance. 

• Identifies the key indicators and methods of testing for each type of 

problem. 

• Develops mitigation strategies for addressing the problems, should they 

arise. 

• Is risk savvy. Understands that risk is perpetual and needs to be managed. 
18 

Table 7 Technical Acumen Theme, Competencies and Behaviors

Middle 

Competencies 

Actual Behaviors 

Possesses Technical 

Competence and 

Has Comprehensive 

Previous 

Experience 

• Shares his or her project experience, and acts as a reliable resource to the 

team and serves as the ‘go to’ person. 

• Demonstrates the depth of technical knowledge and expertise necessary to 

perform, manage, and coordinate work-related activities. 

• Possesses a strong, fundamental understanding of engineering principles 

along with a cross-disciplinary background. 

• Engages specialists for their technical knowledge and abilities. 

• Demonstrates ability to focus on details while keeping the big picture in 

mind. Is able to shift focus between the two with ease. 

• Uses an iterative process to refine the design to accomplish the system 

requirements 

Learns from 

Successes and 

Failures 

• Shares with others lessons learned. Lessons come from a strong base of 

engineering experiences across the full life-cycle. 

• Documents and studies the successes and failures of both the current and 

previously developed systems. Uses this information to make decisions 

that reduce risk and maximize the probability of success. 

• Is willing to learn from past failures as well as successes. Understands 

both are important. 

5.0 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Temperament Results 

5.1 Description of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) [11] was administered to each of the highly 

regarded SEs in order to identify their personality or psychological type. Of the 38 SEs who 

participated in the behavioral study, 34 completed the MBTI®. Based on David Keirsey’s work 

on Temperament [7], the MBTI® results can be broken down into one of four temperaments: 

Intuitive-Thinking (NT), Sensing-Judging (SJ), Sensing-Perceiving (SP) and Intuitive-Feeling 

(NF), as shown in Table 14 in Appendix 3. 

5.2 MBTI® and Temperament Results 

 The study population has twice as many NTs (56%) as SPs (26%), followed by SJs (19%), and 

one participant with the NF temperament. Over half of the respondents were Introverts. Unlike 

the previous study at JPL, NASA centers had 9 SPs and 1 NF, while JPL had neither of these 

types or temperaments represented in their study. In order to maintain confidentiality, Center 

and participant names are not indicated. See Table 8 for the MBTI® and Temperament results. 
19 

Table 8 Agency-wide Systems Engineering MBTI® Scores by Temperament 

Temperaments # by 

Category

% of 

Total 

 Actual Scores 

(e.g., INTJ where I=5, N=10, T=7, and J=8)

NT (Intuitive / Thinkers) 19 56% 

INTJ 6 5, 10, 7, 6 31, 5, 37, 13 

18, 6, 24, 8 31, 29, 45, 51 

17, 8, 25, 25 **(scores not available) 

INTP 8 30, 5, 5, 19 11, 9, 14, 11 

12, 16, 15, 8 7, 25, 39, 31 

16, 24, 30, 2 4, 9, 6, 1 

4, 16, 14, 12 **(scores not available) 

ENTJ 1 13, 39, 15, 31 

ENTP 4 12, 8, 5, 14 3, 15, 21, 23 

15, 4, 6, 7 11, 29, 27, 31 

SP (Sensing / Perceiving) 9 26% 

ISTP 3 19, 6, 8, 2 

29, 5, 27, 2 

6, 14, 18, 3 

ESTP 5 30, 5, 24, 1 14, 26, 5, 6 

16, 3, 1, 2 17, 10, 20, 12 

25, 5, 8, 12 

ESFP 1 8, 19, 3, 4 

SJ (Sensing / Judging) 5 15% 

ISTJ 3 7, 11, 28, 29 53, 13, 63, 39 

26, 26, 30, 30 

ISFJ 1 21, 23, 1, 39 

ESFJ 1 13, 3, 5, 37 

NF ( Intuitive/ Feeler) 1 3% 

INFJ 1 25, 6, 3, 28 

All but one Center showed a broad range of MBTI® types. The fact that one center had 

respondents with the same MBTI® type was most likely due to the small sample size, i.e., only 

two respondents. See Figure 3 for NASA-wide Systems Engineering MBTI® types represented 

in this study. 

While these findings are interesting, this sample size is too small to draw any definitive 

conclusions. Continued work in this area will need to include additional highly regarded SEs 

across the Centers in comparison with those who might not be considered good candidates to be 

SEs. 
20 

Figure 3 MBTI® Types Occurring in SEs Studied Across the Agency 

6.0 Next Steps 

The OCE will share these study findings widely both inside and outside of NASA. Conference 

papers and presentations are being developed, and this report will be posted to the Workforce 

page of the Systems Engineering Community of Practice on the NASA Engineering Network 

(NEN) at the following URL http://nen.nasa.gov

In addition, both the APPEL and SELDP curriculums will be updated to incorporate the 

development of these behaviors. As part of this effort, a 360-degree Systems Engineering 

Behavior Instrument will be created and utilized to assess and track individual skill development. 

The SELDP will incorporate executive coaching based on the findings of this assessment 

ESFP 

Performer/Entertainer

 

ESTP 

Maneuverer/Promoter

ENTP 

Inventor/Improvisor 

ENTJ 

Director/Commandant 

ISFP 

Performer/Composer

ISTP 

Maneuverer/Operator 

INTP 

Inventor/Designer 

INTJ 

Foreseer/Mobilizer 

ESFJ 

Provider/Caretaker 

ESTJ 

Overseer/Supervisor

ENFP 

Proponent/Messenger

ENFJ 

Foreseer/Mobilizer 

ISFJ 

Provider/Nourisher 

ISTJ 

Overseer/Inspector 

INFP 

Proponent/Advocate 

INFJ 

Foreseer/Developer 

NF 3% 

NT 56% 

 SJ 15% 

SP 26% 

SE MBTI types represented 

across the Agency 
21 

instrument to accelerate the development of key systems engineering leadership skills during the 

SELDP year. 

The findings of this study bring a new dimension to the understanding of effective Systems 

Engineering. Little has been explored or studied on the behavioral dimensions of this discipline, 

and therefore, the OCE is anxious to share these finding with the larger systems engineering 

community. Articles are being written for outside publications and these findings are already 

being presented at Systems Engineering Conferences. 

7.0 Summary and Conclusions 

There is a shared set of specific behaviors at NASA that enable individuals to excel as system 

engineers. These behaviors are observable and measurable. And, while these behaviors come 

naturally to some individuals, they are skills that potentially can be developed and learned. The 

SELDP is predicated on the growth mindset identified by Dweck [4] in which one sees himself 

or herself as a work in progress with opportunities for growth. It asserts that with effort, SEs can 

grow, change and learn new behaviors and skills. See Table 15 in Appendix 4.0 for a 

comparison of the growth vs. the fixed mindset. All the SEs who were interviewed exhibited the 

growth mindset. 

Highly successful SEs possess a foundation of advanced technical knowledge in one or more 

areas. While this knowledge provides the essential footing, it is the softer, less definable skills 

that set these individuals apart. Creativity, curiosity, mixed with self-confidence, persistence and 

a knowledge of human dynamics, allows the highly regarded SEs to be successful. They have 

the ability to ask the questions, identify what is missing, pinpoint the soft spots in a design, then 

help to identify a solution to the problem. The SEs understand what must happen to obtain 

success and what must happen to avert failure. They are drawn to the challenge of solving 

complex problems by possessing an approach that is comprehensive and intentionally does not 

favor any particular sub-element of a system. They look across the entire system and facilitate 

trades and compromises to get a balance, optimized design. They exhibit excellent human 

relations skills, and understand how to create a vision for the team by keeping the team on track 

by holding a big picture view of what needs to be accomplished in order to reach mission 

requirements. They clearly demonstrate the growth mindset in all its many facets. These 

findings are consistent with the literature on highly successful and effective people [1], [2], [8], 

[9], [10]. 

The results of the initial JPL SE Behavioral Study and the Agency-wide study are similar. The 

results of the Agency-wide study indicate that while there are many separate Center cultures at 

NASA, there are also shared systems engineering behaviors that provide NASA great 

opportunities on which to build. Identifying and making these similarities explicit through the 

use of studies such as this, creates a common language and a way to build on the strengths of one 

of the largest brain trusts in the world. The similarities in the findings across NASA were 

unmistakable in proving this point. 

On a discipline level, this study provides the Office of the Chief Engineer with specific, 

scientifically-based answers that will allow them to create learning models and strategies that 
22 

will strengthen systems engineering across the Agency and build more targeted programs and 

policies to support mission success. 

On a local level, those Centers that have produced Center-wide reports now have greater 

understanding of what works, and can develop ways to reproduce this success through local SE 

programs, mentoring and other opportunities. 

On an individual level, system engineering employees can build and structure their career 

choices and learning options. An awareness of how they compare to the best-of-the-best will 

allow them and their supervisors to make more effective choices in building their development 

strategies. 

Most NASA systems engineers stated that good systems engineering does not come from a 

degree in Systems Engineering, but from hands-on learning and doing, working closely with 

other successful SEs. They felt strongly that in ten years, the art of systems engineering and the 

needed SE behaviors would be the same, but that some processes and tools might be different, 

and that certainly the systems themselves would be larger and more complex. 

While SEs need training in all three axes of the SE competency model – process knowledge, 

technical knowledge, and personal behaviors – the personal behaviors component is where the 

maximum leverage is gained. That is what separates the merely good SEs from the highly 

regarded and successful SEs. Unfortunately, the typical SE training program largely ignores the 

behavior component to the detriment of SEs. Hence, the results of this study show the need for a 

major paradigm shift in training SEs. 

There are clearly identifiable behaviors that highly successful SEs exhibit. It is not only 

possible, but highly desirable, to openly communicate what those behaviors are and to encourage 

members of the systems engineering community to develop them. The awareness and 

understanding learned from this study will help advance the SE discipline not only within NASA 

itself, but also across the engineering community at large. 

While the NASA SELDP is a start in developing the next generation of SEs, this is by no means 

the end, but rather only a beginning. The agency would gain value by taking this information 

and seriously considering inculcating these behaviors into all training for the SE Community. 
23 

8.0 Acknowledgements 

Many people have contributed to the success of the study and deserve recognition, including the 

SEs who participated in this study and the team members who dedicated themselves to 

advancing the understanding of the “art of systems engineering.” 

Table 9 Systems Engineers in NASA SE Behavior Study 

Name Role 

Michael Ospring Group Leader for Mechanical Systems and Analysis 

Stephen Jensen Program Chief Engineer SOFIA 

James Free Task Verification Manager Orion 

Todd Tofil Lead Systems Engineer CONNECT 

Richard Wiedenmannott Systems Engineer Integrated Environmental Test (IET) Facility (part of 

Orion CEV) 

Peter Mike Bay Mission Systems Engineer for Solar Dynamics Observatory 

Gary Sneiderman Instrument Systems Engineer for Astral H 

David Everett Mission Systems Engineer for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 

Pete Spidaliere Mission Systems Engineer for Magnetospheric Multiscale 

Joseph Bolek Chief Flight Systems Engineer for Explores Project 

Michael Menzel Mission Systems Engineer for James Webb Space Telescope 

Walt Guy Manager of System Architecture and Integrations Office 

Chris Hardcastle Director, Constellation Program Systems Engineering & Integration 

Don Noah Manager, Space Shuttle Program Systems Engineering & Integration 

John Connolly Lead, Altair Vehicle Engineering & Integration 

Kent Joosten Assist. Manager Constellation Office of the Program Systems Engineer 

Julie Kramer Chief Engineer, Orion 

Gentry Lee Chief Engineer for Solar System Exploration, SE Fellow 

Cece Guiar Formulation Project SE for Astrophysics 

Riley Duren Chief Engineer, Kepler 

Nagin Cox Assist. Flight SE Manager on MSL and Group Supervisor 

Duncan MacPherson Systems Engineering Fellow 

Glenn Reeves Flight Software COG E for MSL Flight 

Rob Manning Chief Engineer MSL, MEP 

Charles Whetsel Project Systems Engineer, MSL 

Jeff Yu Project Architect, Advanced MIR Development Project 

James Corliss Project Engineer for Orion Landing System Advanced Development 

Project and ASG Experimental Facilities Development 

Kurt Detweiler Flight Test Lead Systems Engineer, Ares 1-X 

John Stadler Orion Launch Orbit Abort System Vehicle Lead Engineer 

Henry Wright Aerospace Technologist, Ares 1-X 

T. David Wood Chief Engineer, SRB 

Scott Croomes Center Deputy Chief Engineer 

Garry Lyles Associate Director for Technical Management 

Dinah Williams Sr. Systems Engineer in Spacecraft and Vehicle Systems Development 

Bartt Herbert Chief Engineer 

Brad Messer Chief of Systems Engineer and Integration Division 

Nickey Raines Deputy Chief Engineer 

Steven A. Taylor Deputy Chief of Systems Engineer and Integration Division 
24 

Table 10 NASA SE Behavior Study Team Members 

 

In addition, this study would not have been possible without the support from the following 

people: 

Table 11 Sponsors, Stakeholders and Supporters of the NASA SE Behavior Study 

Name Affiliation and Role 

Michael Griffin NASA Administrator 

Mike Ryschkewitsch NASA Chief Engineer 

Gregory Robinson NASA Deputy Chief Engineer 

Stephen Kapurch NASA Systems Engineering Program Executive Officer, 

NASA Systems Engineering Working Group (SEWG), Chair 

John Blowers JPL Section Manager, Professional Development Section 

Ross Jones JPL Rep. to NASA Systems Engineering Working Group 

Edward Hoffman NASA Academy of Program, Project and Engineering 

Leadership (APPEL), Director 

Wiley Larson Stevens Institute of Technology, Director, Space Systems 

 Engineering 

Dawn Schaible NASA Engineering and Safety Center, Manager, 

Systems Engineering Office 

various NASA Systems Engineering Working Group Members 

Maureen Dale RGI, Logistics Manager 

Paulette Cali-Kaviana and 

Dennis Brundige, 

JPL, Transcription Services 

Lynda Jones and 

Mary Wiggins 

GSFC, (SEVATEC), Career Coaches 

Name Affiliation 

Rick Turner Study Team Member, Marshall Space Flight Center 

Jason Nelson Study Team Member, Johnson Space Center 

Jose Bolton Study Team Member, Johnson Space Center 

Katherine Thomas Study Team Member, Academy of Program, Project and 

Engineering Leadership 

Donna Wilson Study Team Member, Academy of Program, Project and 

Engineering Leadership 

Matt Kohut Study Team Member, Academy of Program, Project and 

Engineering Leadership 

Kathy Christian Study Team Member, Dryden Flight Research Center 

Ed Amatucci Study Team Member, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Carolyn Casey Study Team Member, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Matt Jarvis Study Team Member, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Marty Parker Study Team Member, Kennedy Space Center 

Mary Ellen Derro Study Team Member, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 
25 

9.0 References 

[1] Stephen R. Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 

New York, NY, 1989, ISBN 0-671-66398-4 

[2] Stephen R. Covey, The Eighth Habit: From Effectiveness To Greatness, Simon & Schuster, 

New York, NY, 2004, ISBN 0-684-84665-9. 

[3] Mary Ellen Derro, “Coaching Valuable Systems Engineering Behaviors,”, IEEE Aerospace 

Conference, March 2008. 

[4] Carol S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Random House, 2006, ISBN-13:978-

1400062751. 

[5] P. A. “Trisha” Jansma and Ross Jones, “Advancing the Practice Of Systems Engineering at 

JPL”, IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2006. 

[6] P. A. “Trisha” Jansma and Mary Ellen Derro, “If You Want Good Systems Engineers, 

Sometimes You Have To Grow Your Own”, IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 2007. 

[7] Keirsey Temperament and Myers Briggs, http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/keirsey-analysis.html, 

Sep 2008. 

[8] John Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, 

1998, ISBN 0-7852-7431-6 

[9] John Maxwell, The 360 Degree Leader, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, 2005, ISBN 0-

7852-6092-7 

[10] John Maxwell, Thinking for a Change: 11 Ways Highly Successful People Approach Life 

and Work, Warner Books, Inc., New York, 2003, ISBN 0-446-52957-5 

[11] Isabel B. Myers and Peter Myers, Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type, 

Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1990, ISBN-13: 9780891060741 
26 

10.0 Appendices 

10.1 Appendix 1 Systems Engineering Interviewees 

Table 12 Names of Systems Engineering Interviewees at each NASA Center 

Center Interviewees Current Position 

 

ARC Michael Ospring Group Leader for Mechanical Systems and Analysis 

DFRC Stephen Jensen SOFIA Program Chief Engineer 

GRC James Free Orion Task Verification Manager 

Todd Tofil CONNECT Lead Systems Engineer 

Richard Wiedenmannott 

GSFC Peter Mike Bay Mission Systems Engineer for Solar Dynamics Observatory 

Gary Sneiderman Instrument Systems Engineer for Astral H 

David Everett Mission Systems Engineer for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 

Pete Spidaliere Mission Systems Engineer for Magnetospheric Multiscale 

Joseph Bolek Chief Flight Systems Engineer for Explores Project 

Michael Menzel Mission Systems Engineer for James Webb Space Telescope 

JSC Walt Guy Office Manager of System Architecture and Integrations Office 

Chris Hardcastle Director, Constellation Program Systems Engineering & 

Integration 

Don Noah Manager, Space Shuttle Program Systems Engineering & 

Integration 

John Connolly Lead, Altair Vehicle Engineering & Integration 

Kent Joosten Assistant Manager Constellation Office of the Program Systems 

Engineer 

Julie Kramer Chief Engineer, Orion 

JPL Gentry Lee Chief Engineer for Solar System Exploration, Systems 

Engineering Fellow 

Cece Guiar Formulation Project SE for Astrophysics 

Riley Duren Chief Engineer, Kepler 

Nagin Cox Assist. Flight SE Manager on MSL and Group Supervisor 

Duncan MacPherson Systems Engineering Fellow 

Glenn Reeves Flight Software COG E for MSL Flight 

Rob Manning Chief Engineer MSL, MEP 

Charles Whetsel Project Systems Engineer, MSL 

Jeff Yu Project Architect, Advanced MIR Development Project 

LaRC James Corliss Project Engineer for Orion Landing System Advanced 

Development Project and ASG Experimental Facilities 

Development 

Kurt Detweiler Flight Test Lead System Engineer, Ares 1-X 

John Stadler Orion Launch Orbit Abort System Vehicle Lead Engineer 

Henry Wright 

MSFC T. David Wood SRB Chief Engineer 

Scott Croomes Center Deputy Chief Engineer 

Garry Lyles Associate Director for Technical Management 

Dinah Williams Senior Systems Engineer in Spacecraft and Vehicle Systems 

Development 

SSC Bartt Herbert Chief Engineer 

Brad Messer Chief of Systems Engineer and Integration Division 

Nickey Raines Deputy Chief Engineer 
27 

 Steven A. Taylor Deputy Chief of Systems Engineer and Integration Division 
28 

10.2 Appendix 2 Center Study Team Members 

Table 13 Center Study Team Members

Center Studied Study Team Members Home Center 

ARC Mary Ellen Derro JPL 

DFRC Kathy Christian DFRC 

GRC Matt Kohut APPEL 

 Donna Wilson APPEL 

GSFC Ed Amatucci GSFC 

 Carolyn Casey GSFC 

 Matt Jarvis GSFC 

JPL Mary Ellen Derro JPL 

JSC Jose Bolton JSC 

 Jason Nelson JSC 

KSC Marty Parker KSC 

LaRC Katherine Thomas APPEL 

 Donna Wilson APPEL 

MSFC Rick Turner MSFC 

 Rose Opengart MSFC 

SSC Katherine Thomas APPEL 

 Donna Wilson APPEL 

Managing Roles 

Study Director Christine Williams HQ/OCE 

Study Director and 

Technical Lead 

Mary Ellen Derro JPL 

Logistics Manager Maureen Dale HQ/RGI 
29 

10.3 Appendix 3 MBTI Description 

Table 14 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®) Mental Processes and Orientations 

Natural 

energy 

orientation 

Extraverted (E) 

Face is directed towards the OUTER world 

of activities, excitements, people, and things. 

• Act first, think/reflect later 

• Feel deprived when cutoff from 

interaction with the outside world 

• Usually open to and motivated by 

outside world of people and things 

• Enjoy wide variety and change in people 

relationships 

Introverted (I) 

Face is directed inward to the INNER world of 

thoughts, interests, ideas, and imagination. 

• Think/reflect first, then act 

• Regularly require an amount of "private 

time" to recharge batteries 

• Motivated internally, mind is sometimes so 

active it is "closed" to outside world 

• Prefer one-to-one communication and 

relationships 

Way of 

perceiving or 

understanding 

and taking in 

information 

Sensing (S) 

The Sensing side of our brain notices the 

sights, sounds, smells and all the sensory 

details of the PRESENT. It categorizes, 

organizes, records and stores the specifics 

from the here and now. It is REALITY

based, dealing with "what is." It also provides 

the specific details of memory and 

recollections from PAST events. 

• Mentally live in the Now, attending to 

present opportunities 

• Using common sense and creating 

practical solutions is automaticinstinctual 

• Memory recall is rich in detail of facts 

and past events 

• Best improvise from past experience 

• Like clear and concrete information; 

dislike guessing when facts are "fuzzy" 

Intuitive (N) 

The Intuitive side of our brain seeks to 

understand, interpret and form OVERALL

patterns of all the information that is collected and 

records these patterns and relationships. It 

speculates on POSSIBILITIES, including 

looking into and forecasting the FUTURE. It is 

imaginative and conceptual. 

• Mentally live in the Future, attending to 

future possibilities 

• Using imagination and creating/inventing 

new possibilities is automatic-instinctual 

• Memory recall emphasizes patterns, 

contexts, and connections 

• Best improvise from theoretical 

understanding 

• Comfortable with ambiguous, fuzzy data and 

with guessing its meaning. 

Way of 

forming 

judgments 

and making 

choices and 

decisions 

Thinking (T) 

The Thinking side of our brain analyzes 

information in a DETACHED, objective 

fashion. It operates from factual principles, 

deduces and forms conclusions 

systematically. It is our logical nature.

• Instinctively search for facts and logic in 

a decision situation. 

• Naturally notices tasks and work to be 

accomplished. 

• Easily able to provide an objective and 

critical analysis. 

• Accept conflict as a natural, normal part 

of relationships with people. 

Feeling (F) 

The Feeling side of our brain forms conclusions 

in an ATTACHED and somewhat global manner, 

based on likes/dislikes, impact on others, and 

human and aesthetic values. It is our subjective 

nature. 

• Instinctively employ personal feelings and 

impact on people in decision situations 

• Naturally sensitive to people’s needs and 

reactions. 

• Naturally seek consensus and popular 

opinions. 

• Unsettled by conflict; have almost a toxic 

reaction to disharmony. 

Action 

orientation 

towards the 

outside world 

Judging (J) 

A Judging style approaches the outside world 

WITH A PLAN and is oriented towards 

organizing one's surroundings, being 

prepared, making decisions and reaching 

closure and completion. 

• Plan many of the details in advance 

before moving into action. 

• Focus on task-related action; complete 

meaningful segments before moving on. 

• Work best and avoid stress when keep 

ahead of deadlines. 

• Naturally use targets, dates and standard 

routines to manage life. 

Perceiving (P) 

A Perceiving style takes the outside world AS IT 

COMES and is adopting and adapting, flexible, 

open-ended and receptive to new opportunities 

and changing game plans. 

• Comfortable moving into action without a 

plan; plan on-the-go. 

• Like to multitask, have variety, mix work 

and play. 

• Naturally tolerant of time pressure; work 

best close to the deadlines. 

• Instinctively avoid commitments which 

interfere with flexibility, freedom and variety 
30 

10.4 Appendix 4 Description of the Fixed vs. the Growth Mindset

Table 15 Fixed Mindset vs. Growth Mindset 

Fixed Mindset Growth Mindset 

Intelligence Intelligence is static. 

Leads to a desire to look smart. 

Intelligence can be developed. 

Leads to a desire to learn and grow. 

Challenges Avoids challenges Embraces challenges 

Obstacles Gives up easily Persists in the face of setbacks 

Effort Sees effort as fruitless or worse Sees effort as the path to mastery 

Criticism Ignores useful negative 

feedback 

Learns from criticism 

Success of 

Others 

Feels threatened by the success 

of others 

Finds lessons and inspiration in the 

success of others 

Results May plateau early and achieve 

less than their full potential 

Reaches ever higher levels of 

achievement 

View Confirms deterministic view of 

the world 

Gives greater sense of free will 
31 

10.5 Appendix 4 Center Reports 

Centers that did not interview four or more individuals did not produce a Center report. 

It was determined that without at least four individuals, the data set was too small to 

provide reliable findings. Therefore, Center reports are not available for the following 

three centers: 

• Ames Research Center (ARC) 

• Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) 

• Glenn Research Center (GRC) 

Also, as mentioned previously, findings from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) were not 

available for inclusion in this report. 

Note: To view the Center Reports, please go to the NASA Engineering Network (NEN) 

website at http://nen.nasa.gov and select the Systems Engineering Community of Practice 

(SE CoP). Then select the Workforce tab to view the reports. 

10.5.1 Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Report 

10.5.2 Johnson Space Center (JSC) Report 

10.5.3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Report 

10.5.4 Langley Research Center (LRC) Report 

10.5.5 Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Report 

10.5.6 Stennis Space Center (SSC) Report