Confronting an identity crisis—How to “brand” systems engineering

  • Authors:

  • Michael Emes;Alan Smith;Douglas Cowper

  • Affiliations:

  • UCL Centre for Systems Engineering, Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, United Kingdom;UCL Centre for Systems Engineering, Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, United Kingdom;UCL Centre for Systems Engineering, Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, United Kingdom

  • Venue:
  • Systems Engineering
  • Year:
  • 2005

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Systems Engineering is not a new discipline; the term has been in use since World War II. Yet, while there has been no shortage of definitions of the term over the years (not all of which are consistent), there is little consensus on the scope of Systems Engineering. This is particularly true in relation to other overlapping disciplines such as System Dynamics, Operations Research, Industrial Engineering, Project Management, Soft Systems Methodology, Specialist Engineering, and Control Theory, which share many of the origins and techniques of Systems Engineering. This paper presents a landscape of disciplines and suggests that INCOSE should “brand” Systems Engineering strategically, defining explicitly its position within this landscape including its points of parity (overlaps) and points of difference with other disciplines. Actively branding Systems Engineering will broaden its appeal and attract more interest from stakeholders outside the current Systems Engineering community. INCOSE's “market share” relative to its biggest systems competitor—Project Management—is falling, so even though INCOSE membership is rising, more needs to be done to promote the profession. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 8: 164–186, 2005