GRCSE Path Forward

Outline of GRCSE section

• BKCASE Core team + TF have made overview responses to GRCSE review comments– Identified 9 themes

• I present the 9 themes of comments• Our responses to the 9 themes• Path forward– Workshop VII (June)– Workshop VIII (October)– GRCSE v0.5 (review release)

GRCSE Key Issues

• Globally applicable—US Centric.– Stated intention – to be globally applicable

• Seemed to fit US education/employment system– Stage of life/career at which students commence

Masters in SE– Issues associated with accreditation

GRCSE Key Issues

• Defense/Aerospace slant– We believe this general observation flowed from

the use of examples originating from particular places• Both institutions and industries

GRCSE Key Issues

• Experience (Entrance Expectations)– Global issues: is it too much? Not enough? – Some concern that it was overly restrictive– Not sensitive to different national contexts– Lack of explanation of how the entrance

expectations are linked to• Content• Outcomes• Objectives

GRCSE Key Issues

• Degree Type (Entrance Expectation)– MBA, social sciences• This was based on the different pathways taken by

SEs and the fact that some employers had successfully encouraged people with non-engineering backgrounds to do SE programs (usually after on-the-job training in engineering based on other education)

GRCSE Key Issues

• Recommendations VS Requirements– Some reviewers seemed to expect a specification

of a Master of SE program• Contrary to our intention – to write a guide to assist

people to– Develop Master of SE programs– Evaluate/maintain Master of SE programs– Inform activities associated with linking programs to

competencies and accreditation (we specifically are not producing an accreditation framework)

GRCSE Key Issues

• Software—too much emphasis? – There were many comments to the effect that

there was too much about software in GRCSE, and not enough about hardware or SoS or enterprises

– Entangled disciplines• We have been conscious of tension over related

disciplines – especially PM and SwE

– Product/Service/Enterprise/SoS

GRCSE Key Issues

• Curriculum Architecture– Questions raised about the choice of explicit

addressing of System Design and Technology Management• What about other aspects of lifecycle – such as O&M

and Disposal• Bias – seemed to follow Defense acquisition approach

GRCSE Key Issues

• How to use/examples– Some reviewers suggested it would be useful to

have guidance in how to use GRCSE in various scenarios in which it could be used• Companion document• Papers (0.5)• Additional chapter/appendix (1.0?)

GRCSE Key Issues

• CorBoK– Confusion about the relationship of ‘Core’ and

‘Core Extension’• Requires better communication

– Why did we choose SDD and TM• Incompleteness (X’s, not Bloom levels) made it

harder to understand

– Many recommended additional topics

Global applicability

• Possibly different sets of recommendations by education system– We observe differences in progress through

education – next slide– We interpreted the comments about global

applicability as relating to these differences in education system structure internationally (not details of terminology – which also differ)

Global applicability

EducateEducate

EducateEducate EducateEducate

ExperienceExperience

ExperienceExperience

EducateEducate

1

2

How to compensate for the difference in order?

Additional activitiesPractical/Hands-on workLabs

EducateEducate ExperienceExperience

3

Undergrad only—holistic perspective on WFD

Global applicability

• Globally applicable– Possibly different sets of recommendations by

education system

• Dividing out into two streams (u/g->p/g->wk; u/g->work->p/g) is likely to make changes to:– Entrance requirements– Objectives– Outcomes• More later

Defense/Aerospace slant

• We believe this observation flowed from the use of examples originating from particular places– Both institutions and industries (this can follow

from specific vocabulary or issues)– Contrary to the goal of domain independence

• Solution– Rework to excise examples or to create new

material in other areas

Entrance expectations

• Concerns expressed over how much experience should be expected– Range from none to 10 years– Seems to be influenced by educations system

and competitive position of the university• Education system – valid in GRCSE• Competitive position – not relevant in GRCSE

• Action– Review in relation to education system decision– Link to learning outcomes and objectives

Background degree expectations

• Degree Type (discipline)– Question is which kind of degree should be

required as background• Is it important which degree

ORWhat students should have learned through the degree?

– Natural science (one or several? Physics, Bio, Chem? All? Some?)

– Domain dependent? Finance requires math focus; defense physics, etc.

Background degree expectations

• Degree Type (discipline)– Another set of comments expressed a lack of

explanation of the link of background education and the content or outcomes and objectives of programs

– Type of system focus– Product, service, enterprise

–What are the commonalities?

Background degree expectations

• Specifics– Need specifics? vs World view• Scientific method (scientific discipline)• Engineering thought process and proficiency (some

level)—using science to solve problem• Undergraduate sequence in engineering and/or natural

sciences (not dependent on specifics—domain drives specifics of which sciences)• Programs determine specifics based on their

emphases, domain focuses, etc.

GRCSE Recommendations vs Requirements

• Tension in how people understood GRCSE– Some expected instruction for a program– Some expected guidance for how to design a

program

• Solution– Improve clarity of expression of

recommendations concept– Recommendations is one of the foundational

positions of GRCSE (I believe correctly)

Software - emphasis

• Entangled disciplines—PM and SwE• Solution– Improve the clarity and completeness of

discussion of• Product• Service• Enterprise• SoS

Architecture

• Some difficulty for readers to understand• Approach– Use detailed adjudication of comments to

determine the best solution to deal with SDD/TM—rationale? Defense?

– This also impacts the generalisability of GRCSE

Examples related to use of GRCSE

• Suggested that examples of how to use GRCSE would help readers– Use of GRCSE as a tools to design a program– As a tool to review/revise an existing program– As a tool for constructing an accreditation guide– V0.5 – write as an additional chapter/appendix —

companion document, papers; additional chapter/appendix

CorBOK

• SDD/TM – table– What to include?– What is the intent?– Extension areas contentious• What they are – maybe others• Many recommended additional topics

– SEBoK TOC stable at 15 July

• Part Leads identify/prioritize KA’s and topics for CorBoK and corresponding Bloom’s levels

CorBOK

• Path Forward– Use SEBOK structure to guide topic selection• More mature at 15/July

– Clarify nature and content of the tables• This is likely to be much clearer when we include

Bloom levels of achievement

Educational systems – 2 patterns

– Two different entrance expectations based on 2 models– Weave the rest around the expectations– Packaging will create two variants– Need to trace entrance to outcomes– CorBoK Kas the same–Outcomes same or very similar (very clear)–Objectives may be different– Architecture may be different (but some similarity)

WS VI – Working Day (Day 3)

• First cut at topics (~10?) with Bloom’s levels– Core– Extensions• Present end of day 3

– Brief discussion with full author team

• Plan details of action to proceed– Plan how to engage authors not present at

BKCASE VI

GRCSE work to WS VII

• Comment adjudication 1st cut• Document update based on discussion– Solid version of materials outside CorBoK– First cut of CorBoK based on current 0.5 skeleton• Topics and Bloom’s levels• Validate post WS VII• Consider contact time budget for approx hours

allocated to topics to achieve Bloom’s level• Differences between Education/Experience Model s1

and 2

Towards BKCASE VII - Companion Documents?

• Examples of implementations– Schools that may use GRCSE to examine/start

programs, use in academic program reviews

• Plan work to be done (by WS VII)

Towards WS VIII (UK) (preliminary)

– 1 Aug – Engage SEBOK Part Team leads– For guidance re CorBOK content and Bloom’s levels

– Draft 0.5, with near-final CorBoK, promulgated among team, present at BKCASE VIII

Staffing

• Chapter 1 – Team• Chapter 2 – Team• Chapter 3 – Tim, Rick, NEED• Chapter 4 – Olwell, NEED• Chapter 5 – Nic, Rick, Marcia, Massood, NEED• Chapter 6 – Alice, John B., NEED• Chapter 7 – JJ, Alice, Tim, (Olwell, Tim, Art),

NEED 1 and 2

Staffing

• Chapter 8 – Olwell, Daniel P• Chapter 9 – Tim• Appendix A – Mary, Tom, Nic (follow up?)• Appendix B – Tim, NEED• Appendix C – NEED 1, 2, and 3• Appendix D – Prun• Appendix E – Alice, NEED• Appendix F – Freeman

Staffing

• References and Glossary (compilation) - Nic