Talk:Systems engineering/Archive 2

message: Are KPPs the same as Key Performance Indicators and Key Performance Areas?
Thank you
Obadiaha 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Performance Parameters 

message: The article needs some rewrite and standardization along the lines of a featured article in Wikipedia. I am going to suggest -- and then subsequently perform -- moving sections around and rewriting some of the stuff here. I am thinking about SE more as a discipline than a practice. So, for instance, there are some sections like 'scope', and 'successes and failures', that may warrant clubbing(after trimming, of course) them together and later, if we wish, creating child pages for more detail. Needless to say, please review and discuss any changes that you feel are not improving this article  gnusbiz 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to take a look at (and, more importantly, contribute to) the discussions about how to improve this article which are taking place here. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and standardization 

message: It looked as if listing all the steps of a system lifecycle was getting too detailed and a bit confusing at this stage. Also, I wasn't able to find a good source that listed all the stages in a system lifecycle. If anyone finds that, maybe we can put it in the system lifecycle page itself. Thanks gnusbiz 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  system lifecycle 

message: There were several passages that although represented the correct idea, were actually repeating the same thing in different words. moreover, the tone was a bit informal. for e.g. 
In recent times, industry in general has begun to accept that the engineering of systems, both large and small, can lead to unpredictable behavior and the emergence of unforeseen system characteristics ('emergent properties').
. I have tried to condense and rephrase this statement as "the principles of Systems Engineering — holism, emergence, behavior, boundary, et al — can be applied to any system, complex or otherwise, provided systems thinking is employed at all levels."
Another thing that I've tried to accomplish -- and that must be reviewed/expanded on-- is the connection between SE, system theory, and systems thinking. Please remember that adding text with citation will be easier for other editors to improve upon.
Gnusbiz 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Moved up as I felt it is more relevant to show both sides of SE(practice and discipline). Again, removed un-sourced, informal text with one supported with sources. Still more work required in this section; for e.g., recent research, education outside of US and Europe, etc. 
Gnusbiz 07:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: ::The first part of this discussion is archived here here
This talk item is initiated by gnusbiz 21 May 2007, and has resulted in a longer discussion about improving the Systems Engineering article. The next short summary is a remainder of what we are dealing with. 
gnusbiz first cointed three items, which where left onspoken: 
#System lifecycle 
#Scope 
#Education  
Four next items did result in some discussion, action and conclusions: 
#Lead image: This is ok 
#Further use of images in the Systems Engineering articles: Will be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative talk page.   
#definitional box: 
##arguments about the format resulted in some changes the format
##arguments about more possible definitions will be continue in a new talk item  
#Lead sentence: We leaf it like this for the moment. 
With the archive of this discussion on 26 june 2007 I hope to have made room for further discussion. - Mdd 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and standardization 

message: :I have moved the following section from the article. I think (as we discusted before) we should rewrite it or find a better place for it. - Mdd 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding SE successes and failures (Moved from the article)

message: A List of systems engineering books is being developed to get an overview of the more important books written on systems engineering, and it's historical development. If you have any information or other notable lists, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? - Mdd 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope you can accept IEEE Std 1220 as a "book."  BTW and FWIW, I share you hesitations re. INCOSE.  I'm not sure where INCOSE's center of gravity is, but in my opinion it's definitely not in the engineering part of "systems engineering."  As such, they do more harm than good.  Cheers. -- Iterator12n  Talk  19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of systems engineering books 

message: A List of systems engineering at universities is beeing developed to get a better impression of the State of the Art in SE education. If you have any information, please edit the list yourselve or let us know? -Mdd 18:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick note of caution.  A "list of systems engineering at universities" may have elements that cause confusion.  For instance, I have seen universities claim courses, say Communications Systems Engineering,  under the heading of Systems Engineering where the actual course addresses the engineering of communications artifacts without ever getting into the discipline of systems engineering proper. -- Iterator12n  Talk  19:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of systems engineering at universities 

message: The past discussion made me realize onces again, that the historical section seems way out of line of giving a representative image of the SE history. One third is about the INCOSE history. If you read it, you get the impression that SE started with INCOSE in the 1990s, while in fact the discipline emerged in the 50 years before that. - Mdd 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history section need attention 

message: I happen to notice that the lastest link removed here
* Charlie Ramsey, SE Today Project 
Had an article about our discussion, brought as latest news. This website brought the headline: 
:INCOSE takes a bashing from writers on Wikipedia.  
:Written by Administrator - Oct 29, 2007 at 07:26 PM  
:INCOSE is taking a lot of heat from the editors over on Wikipedia. There seems to be complaints about the motivation of the organization and their goals... 
The further article refers to the above discussion here about What INCOSE writes about SE is citable...?? from 4 october 2007 between Alan and me. This article clearly takes parts of it out of perspective. It's clear to me that we were not talking about INCOSE in general but just as source for this Wikipedia article according to Wikipedia policies (I also made this more clear by adjusting the title a little). If this has caused any confusion I apologize. I am teh most amazed though, that this discussion is taken a source of news. - Mdd 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our discussion here brought as news