Hacker News Reader

Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

The NASA definition the original one, I would think. How are people using "systems engineering" as a term elsewhere, that is incongruent with the NASA definition?

I mean, a "system" at the scale of a NASA project comprises operationalized learning across both machines and people (and supplier-contracts, and legal corporate entities.) With tolerances and maintenance plans and backups for the people-parts as well as the machine-parts of the system.

I don't know if I would describe the design of such a system as "management"; it's more akin to the sort of incentive-system creation that tax regulators or MMO game designers go through, but with a lot more rigor and data.

View on HN

Can confirm, any 'real world' engineering will use the NASA definition. The best way I've found to understand systems engineering is in how my org implements them - a project has a systems engineer and a project manager working alongside each other. They have small overlaps but by and large, the PM is responsible for the non-technical management of the project whereas the SE is responsible for the technical management. This encompasses scope definition, requirements specification, system and subsystem interfaces, testing and verification regimes, etc. etc.

They take the intangible requirements of the client and beat them into a robust series of defintiions that outline what the whole raft of pieces that must assemble together to perform that duty must do, and then also confirm it does indeed meet the client needs. Meanwhile, the PM makes sure the team delivers on time, within budget, with the right organisational oversights to confirm processes are followed, quality management is maintained, etc.

I think NASA's use of "systems engineering" is more or less in line with how everyone except the software industry uses "systems engineering". You'll sometimes (not always) see "systems engineering" in the software industry refer to operating systems, or operating system like stuff (for example, game engines, certain types of real time application, etc). You'll also see it called 'systems programming'. In that context, I can understand why the standard systems engineering role might be considered more 'managementish'.

In most large roles, systems engineers are at least one step removed from the majority of design. In many ways, he works on an abstraction layer of the design, but also provides abstraction layers to the other engineers he works with or DIRECTS.

I am a 'systems engineer' for an ISP and my role is a combination of two things 1. software development for distributed programs that manage the network 2. sys admin type things

That's what most software people think my "systems design engineering" degrees are about, but my program fits the NASA definition much better. It's quite frustrating.

I graduated from a "systems design engineering" program. In it, we had courses in human factors, mechanical engineering, electrical/computer engineering, graph theory, software development, and you could branch out from there as you wanted.

Unfortunately, people seem to think that it means I'm a software developer, in IT, or something along those lines. It's quite unfortunate as both my Master's and Ph.D. were more towards mechanical engineering.

Unless you're working in the Aerospace & Defense, Healthcare Device, or Automotive industries this will continue to be a problem for some time.

It's okay to use equivalent language when seeking out jobs. Try looking for "product design" or "product management" roles that emphasize technical competency.

Reach out to INCOSE and IISE professional organizations for help. Those organizations exist to represent your skill set to industry. Challenge them to improve recruiter and human resources recognition of the term "Systems Engineer".

I didn't know about INCOSE or IISE, so thanks. I've been a member of ASME since I was presenting at their conferences and submitting to their journals as a grad student given the material was focused on mechanical (and textile) engineering. I didn't look for any dedicated systems organizations.

Product Management is what most of our graduates end up doing, but they're usually doing it in software jobs. That said, we have a number of patent and IP lawyers come out of our program and a lot of people go into medicine or biomedical. The latter since we have a dedicated biomedical option as we have a number of faculty in that area.

Did you go to waterloo? I'm in the exact same boat =P.

I'm currently dual hatted as a system's engineer and software developer, so people are always inadvertently right when they ask me that question.

Yes, I did. In fact, if you're a recent grad you probably had me as your TA at some point as I was a TA throughout most of my grad school and did core courses.

> The NASA definition the original one, I would think. How are people using "systems engineering" as a term elsewhere, that is incongruent with the NASA definition?

The term has been co-opted by people in IT doing (I think) operations type work.

It certainly makes a job search much more frustrating since the number of IT positions greatly outnumbers those for the traditional definition.

As "engineer" replaced "programmer," "systems programmer" became "systems engineer" (working on platforms for the applications engineers).

I think that trend has played out slightly differently than you describe. Where I work "systems engineer" is more akin to "system admin."

I can attest that the NASA definition is the one used in our semiconductor company

Reply on news.ycombinator.com