1

Is there value in INCOSE?

As of February 2016Dr Joseph E. Kasser, DSc, CEng, CM, FIET, FIES,

FINCOSE, CMALT, G3ZCZEmail: jkasser@iee.org

Http://therightrequirement.com

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.

2

View INCOSE from the Perspectives Perimeter (Holistic Thinking Perspectives (HTP))

External1. Big picture2. Operational Internal3. Functional4. Structural Progressive5. Generic6. Continuum7. Temporal Remaining8. Quantitative9. Scientific

3

Where’s the value?1. There is no systems engineering in

INCOSE2. There is a lack of Systems Thinking3. INCOSE’s own internal projects do not

follow a systems engineering process4. 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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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.

8

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

9

Leadership1. 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 accomplishments5. Most achievements seem to be ‘meetings took

place’

10

Working Groups1. 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 fun3. Standard volunteer characteristics

Doing what the leader wants to do4. Are the Working Groups worth joining?

11

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

12

Questions and comments