Is there value in INCOSE?

1
Yes, but it is not
what they tell you
it is
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

View INCOSE from the Perspectives Perimeter
(Holistic Thinking Perspectives (HTP))
 External
1. Big picture
2. Operational
 Internal
3. Functional
4. Structural
 Progressive
5. Generic
6. Continuum
7. Temporal
 Remaining
8. Quantitative
9. Scientific
2

Where’s the value?
1. There is no systems engineering in INCOSE
2. There is a lack of Systems Thinking
3. INCOSE’s own internal projects do not follow
a systems engineering process
4. The annual INCOSE international symposia
do not advance the state of the discipline
5. The INCOSE Working Groups don’t produce
anything useful to the real world
3

Lack of Systems Engineering
1. Projects and products
 SE Handbook
 Narrow ‘B’ paradigm, wide role-based process focus
 Certification
 CSEP provides a very minimal narrow-focus qualification
 ESEP is better but non-INCOSE CEng is even better
 Competency model
 Contains two fundamental flaws
 Web site
 User unfriendly
 Dial-in meeting software
 Does/did not work with Macs, only works/worked with Windows operating systems
 BKCASE and GRCSE (Education)
 Few if any users in 2015, outcome predicted in INCOSE IS 2009 Academic Forum
 Other products
 Can’t think of anything useful in teaching systems engineering
2. Requested the systems engineering analysis supporting the selected
choice
 No idea what I was talking about 4

INCOSE’s …
• Organization structure
 Not suited to a professional society
 More suited towards a social club
• Version of systems engineering
• Focuses on HKMF Layer 2 ‘B’ process paradigm (inherently flawed)
• Ignores most of real world activities in HKMF Layer 3 and busy trying to
reinvent existing tools and techniques
• MBSE is reinventing Operations Research and a return to the ‘A’ paradigm
• Dichotomy on Systems of Systems and Complex systems
•INCOSE can’t handle them, real world can and does
• Membership churns
• People join and many don’t renew
• Bylaws
• Violated by officers whose actions are then supported by the Board
• Publications (symposia and journal)
• Not worth reading
• Nothing much new of value
• No qualifications for reviewers
• No objective criteria for acceptance of manuscripts
5

Symposium peer-reviews
• No objective selection criteria for peer-reviews
• Paper rejection based on subjective criteria
 I disagree with the author
 I don’t like the author
 I don't understand the content of the paper
 There are a few typographical errors
 Draft paper is incomplete
• Paper acceptance based on
• Reviewer ignorance of prior publications
• Paper’s grammar and style
• Self-appointed committee’s perception of the diversity of topics,
geographical distribution of authors, and reviewer scores
• Technical scores are overridden by personal agendas
• Produces
• Reinvention of material already published
• Narrow view of systems engineering
• Nothing that makes an impact in the outside world
• Little if any value in the published papers 6

Seattle Symposium 2015
 Attendance
 Some technical thought leaders absent
 Find no value in attending when employer
does not fund participation
 Opening keynote
 Only took INCOSE 25 years to figure it out
 Technical program
 Tackling problems solved between 1960
and 2000
 Similar to previous years but worse
 Lack of systems thinking
 Breakfast
 High fat and sugar
 Aging membership
 Banquet
 Next slide
 Etc.
7

Banquet (travel arrangements)
 Getting to the banquet
 Boarding 600+ people one bus at a time
 4-8 minutes boarding time per bus, 54 (max) people on a bus
 I waited about 20 minutes, and was half way in the queue
 Shuttle bus wait post-banquet
 First bus scheduled for 60 minutes after the dinner ended
 No consideration for jet-lagged participants
 First bus left at 45 minutes
8

Leadership
1. Standard volunteer organization distribution
 Few motivated real workers
 Minority of membership
 Some seek status rather than do work
 Some are content to be seen but don’t contribute
 Peter principle in action
2. Mostly ignorant
 Technical knowledge, dealing with volunteers & other cultures
 Nobody seems to be doing the IV&V, Q/C or mentoring
3. Mediocre (at least the academics)
4. Focus on startups rather than accomplishments
5. Most achievements seem to be ‘meetings took place’
9

Working Groups
1. Two types
 Special Interest Groups
 Talk and talk and talk
Nothing wrong with this if members want it
 Working Groups
 Holding meetings
 Producing useless products, e.g. -
How to write requirements (books of the 1970’s)
[new] Competency model based on failed earlier NDIA attempt
2. Having fun
3. Standard volunteer characteristics
 Doing what the leader wants to do
4. Are the Working Groups worth joining?
10

So, where’s the value?
• After 25 years, no significant contribution to
the discipline of systems engineering
• International Club Organized for Systems
Engineers
 Provides international social networking
opportunities
 Chapter meetings
 Special Interest Groups
 International Workshop
 International Symposium
11

Is there value in INCOSE?

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Is there value in INCOSE? (20)

More from Joseph KAsser (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Is there value in INCOSE?

Editor's Notes