Paper ID #9443Introducing the Fundamentals of Systems Engineering to Freshman throughVarious Interactive Group ActivitiesMs. Madeleine C Brannon, George Washington University Madeleine Brannon is currently pursuing a M.S. in Systems Engineering. She received her B.S. at the George Washington University in Systems Engineering with a minor in mathematics in 2013. She is a Graduate Assistant to Professor Thomas Mazzuchi and works primarily as a Teaching Assistant within the Engineering Management and Systems Engineering department.Prof. Zoe SzajnfarberDr. Thomas Andrew Mazzuchi, George Washington University Dr. Thomas A
broader implementation strategy to include engineering discipline tailoring andeducational research as discussed in our summary and conclusions.2.0 Systems Engineering (SE) Design Course ConceptSE Design differs from the traditional engineering educational approach where, if SE is taught atall, it is taught as a separate subject. Our approach integrates SE fundamentals into the course ashands-on engineering principles and uses the structure of the course itself to apply SE to design.The approach is applicable to one and two semester course formats with either "paper" orhardware/software design projects although our experience suggests the most effective methodinvolves hands-on projects that have to demonstrate a working capability.By structure
impact the investment decision.Of course, these steps must occur after an initial estimate of fiscal feasibility has beenestablished, such as computing the net present value (NPV) or rate of return (IRR) from an initialestimate of project cash flows.Unfortunately, most engineering economy courses at the undergraduate level focus theircoursework on the financial mathematics and eventual computation of the NPV or IRR of a cashflow stream1. This is evidenced by the number of “fundamentals” or “essentials” textbooks onthe market that generally have only one or two chapters dedicated to risk analysis.With the use of spreadsheets becoming ubiquitous in practice and commonplace in teachingengineering economy, it is time to change the focus of our
interdisciplinary process to ensure that the customer and stakeholder’s needs are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy, cost efficient and schedule compliant manner throughout a systems entire life cycle”A more complete review of what people have in mind what they discuss the meaning of systemsengineering is provided by Fraser and Gosavi18 but for the purpose of this paper, we will focuson the key points that: Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary, well defined and described process incorporating as series of steps that enhance the likelihood of developing a successful system.SE in the Undergraduate CurriculumBased on the above very basic definition and understanding of SE methods and importance, thereare fundamentally
different majors, they canchoose the system they are most familiar with. First they need to gather useful information, andthen set up their system model to simulate its behavior. Two or three students can work as agroup, and they can collaborate and improve the model they created. After completing thesimulation and verification, they need to write a project report and present the result to the wholeclass. Besides, students are also required to write four essays on the remaining five kinds ofsystems. In these essays students need to review the concepts and theories, and include at leastone application.II. Course OutlineThe first part of this course is an introduction to the basic concepts of system thinking. First,stock and flow are introduced as
common program, to be reintegrated by a series of lectures tointroduce concepts and explain how to produce SE-appropriate deliverables.The framework for presenting SE content in the capstone course for non-SE majors is to presentmodules as required1 beginning in a single weekly lecture that decreased in frequency as theprojects transitioned from intensive up-front planning to longer execution tasks. The SE processoutlined in the Systems Engineering Fundamentals (SEF) guide2 was initially adopted, and isoutlined in Table 1 with an approximate correspondence to the steps in the EDP. Supplementalmaterial was also drawn from Systems Engineering Handbook,3 as well as other sources
Engineering CurriculumAbstract“Systems engineering” is concerned with the effective management of complex systems over theentire product lifecycle. Good systems engineering practice is essential for the effective design,fabrication, testing and operation of complex systems, such as spacecraft and aircraft.However, teaching good systems engineering to undergraduates is often viewed as either impossible(because “true” systems engineering capabilities must be developed in real, professional settings) orimpractical (because it requires sophisticated tools that are best covered at the Masters level). Whilewe do not dispute that years of practical experience and solid technical fundamentals are necessary tomaster the concepts and application of systems
of enforcing Systems Engineering (SE)principles and practices into course work that can enhance students’ understanding of the issuesin systems integration and project management. In the process of educating SE students,professors need to ensure that students understand the importance of obtaining such skills aseffective communications, good leadership, excellent project management, strong collaborationskills, high ability to adapt to multi-culture environments, and sufficient risk management ability.In addition, SE students also need to adopt two fundamental Industrial Engineering/SE principles,simplification and standardization, into their work. The issue is how we embed the requirementsof these skills and SE principles into course work to
students attracted to the field. In order to address the quantity of systemsengineering expertise, it is necessary to expose undergraduate students in the more traditionalengineering fields to systems engineering fundamentals and allow them to apply thosefundamentals in a meaningful way. The International Council on Systems Engineering(INCOSE) in its vision for systems engineering in 20203 is cognizant of this need andrecommends the insertion of systems engineering principles into traditional engineeringdisciplines such that “systems thinking and systems engineering will permeate bothundergraduate and graduate programs.”The Pennsylvania State University has undergraduate degree programs in a wide range oftraditional engineering disciplines
, emphasis added) As the application of ISE tools have migrated beyond the plant, they have also migrated to other fields. Methods in which to improve operations are not relegated to the world of manufacturing and its associated logistics. Any system in general can be studied and optimization — whether a manufacturing or service system. Hospitals are complex systems that are turning to ISE majors for optimization. Financial systems are looking for efficiencies as well as the mathematical modeling that is fundamental ISE knowledge. Telecommunications, electrical, and water distribution networks must be designed for efficiency, often with the help of ISEs. Even biomedical and biological systems are being
AC 2011-897: IDENTIFYING AND DEFINING RELATIONSHIPS: TECH-NIQUES FOR IMPROVING STUDENT SYSTEMIC THINKINGCecelia M. Wigal, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Cecelia M. Wigal received her Ph.D. in 1998 from Northwestern University and is presently a Professor of Engineering and Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC). Her primary areas of interest and expertise include complex process and system analysis, process improvement analysis, and information system analysis with respect to usability and effectiveness. Dr. Wigal is also interested in engineering education reform to address present and future student and national and international
class, we alsoneed to get the students to advance in the areas of critical thinking, engineering fundamentals,computer programming, and basics of engineering principle and design, and hands-onlaboratories. All of the above also have to be presented in a context that is not overwhelming, isbasically not too threatening, and will help students be ready for the years to come in theengineering discipline. There have been many great efforts as well as practical and conceptualapproaches on what, how, and why to do the freshman engineering classes to be more productiveand effective. In this work, we try to focus on the systems level approach and helping students tounderstand how to connect their computers to sensors and equipment for data
-LEPpeers on real world projects. Finally, a performance activity will be used to directly observe ifand how LEP students approach systems integration problems differently from their peers.IntroductionEngineering majors at East Central State University are similar to those at other schoolsthroughout the nation – students choose to major in one area and they follow a curriculum that islargely specified but has a few electives of various types sprinkled throughout. The primarycommonalities to all majors are a set of math, physics, chemistry, writing, and technology andsociety courses. With this structure, it is not surprising to learn that students in different majorsdevelop different sets of rigorous technical skills and that these skills do not
Paper ID #9235Development of a Systems Engineering Course for Multiple Delivery Meth-odsRichard Sugarman, United States Air Force Richard is an instructor of systems engineering and program risk management with the Air Force Insti- tute of Technology at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. Prior to becoming an instructor at AFIT, he was a systems engineer and program manager at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma. He is currently a visiting faculty member at the University of Dayton through the Air Force Education with Industry Program, where he is developing and teaching a graduate course in systems engineering. Richard holds a B.S
Academy of Astronautics (IAA) in Paris, France. As an internationally recognized author and instructor in system engineering and its organizational application, he is an invited guest speaker and panelist at professional meetings and symposia. Wasson champions the need to strengthen undergraduate engineering programs with a course in the fundamentals of system engineering. He holds B.S.E.E. and M.B.A. degrees from Mississippi State University and a certificate in systems engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology. His professional affiliations include the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the International Council on System Engineering (INCOSE), and the Project Management Institute (PMI
effectively utilized in amechanics course. It is important to recognize that a methodical approach has always been theprinciple behind solid fundamental knowledge acquisition.DEPLOY: Once the first three ideas have been secured in place, it is now necessary toimplement them at the required level with appropriate advantage. Here, the instructor shouldutilize multiples modes of delivery techniques. Such methods have been suggested by Flemingand Mills (Fleming and Mills, 1992). Lectures, Reading, Writing, Visual Aids, Tactile andKinesthetic modes of delivery help to reach students with diverse learning skills.DECIDE: Finally, there should be separate assessments of the course, the curriculum, thestudent body, the instructor and the
detailed analysisof the incorporation of SE into courses. While valuable comments were received, direct feedbackneeds to be received from students and industry members. This is currently in development.Bibliographic Information1. Chaput, Armand J., “Systems Engineering - A Fundamental Concept of Design,” Armand J. Chaput 2013.2. MIL-STD-499B MILITARY STANDARD SYSTEM ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, 1994.3. Anonymous: Project Performance versus Systems Engineering Capability, Executive Summary, A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial Results, SPECIAL REPORT, Revision 1, CMU/SEI-2007-SR-014 November 20074. Executive Summary, A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness - Initial Results, SPECIAL REPORT, Revision 1, CMU/SEI-2007-SR
AC 2012-4441: TEACHING CREATIVE THINKING USING PROBLEM-BASED LEARNINGProf. Ralph Ocon, Purdue University, Calumet Page 25.1245.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Teaching Creative Thinking Using Problem-Based LearningAbstractAs global competition and technological innovation continue to challenge businessorganizations, the ability to solve diverse and complex problems has become essential forstudents in every academic discipline. While pursuing their careers, technology andengineering students will soon realize that the development of creative problem solvingskills is fundamental for success in today’s
a significant role in theconfiguration design of these primary components.The traditional engineering education is structured to emphasize on mathematics, physical,sciences, and engineering sciences. The problem is the lack of sufficient concentration on designand creativity. The creative thinking and its attitudes is essential to design success. Creating a newdesign requires ability of creativity and overcoming its strong barriers. Many engineeringprofessors find it more difficult to teach design than to teach traditional engineering science-basedanalytical topics. Every undergraduate engineering curriculum has a design component, althoughthe extent and structure of that component may vary widely. Engineering design fundamentals arecommon
engineering program that expandson the system knowledge of professional engineers by providing a curriculum that offers ahands-on approach to system engineering by focusing in areas such as modeling, simulation,integration, system engineering processes among others[16]. However, there is still a lack of aclear methodology for teaching students to think systematically. In the process of teaching SoS concepts, one of the fundamental skills that students needto acquire is systems thinking. According to professor Moti Frank, at Holon Academic Instituteof Technology, Holon Israel, systems thinking is the ability to visualize the inner and outerfunctioning of a system; meaning that the engineer/student need to have a completeunderstanding of the
’ worth of experience. This demonstratesthe utility of hands-on projects in developing modeling competency.Student LearningStudents readily grasp the fundamentals of modeling and the tool user interface; althoughcomplex, system modeling is less complicated than other engineering tools (such as CAD orcomplex mathematical analysis packages). In general, student modeling success is roughlyequivalent to their success in other aspects of the course (those who write excellent papers tendto create excellent models). Most students are productive in the modeling tool (at least at a basiclevel) within a month.The creation of blocks, ports, and associated interfaces is readily mastered by most students. Usecase diagrams also are rarely problematic; the
education.Mr. Ali Bouabid, Piedmont Virginia Community College Page 23.545.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2013 Establishing A Community College Pathway to Baccalaureate Systems Engineering ProgramsAbstractA fundamental principle guiding engineering course schedules and student advisement atPiedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) is to offer courses a student would take inhis/her second year at target universities to minimize the chance that s/he would be on the “five(plus) year plan” after transfer. We describe how the model is implemented with respect
systematic development of softwareis to control complexity. In other engineering disciplines the purpose of systematicanalysis and design is perhaps to control complexity but primarily to produceblueprints, schematics, and other plans for construction of a physical artifact.The second additional factor to be considered is the closely coordinated teamworkrequired to produce software. Because software engineering is intellect-intensive,effort is the fundamental unit of estimation and control for software projects. Asoftware project estimated to require 100 staff-months of effort might beconstructed by 10 people working for 10 months but not 100 people working for onemonth and probably not 1 person working for 100 months; teams of
used acquired systemsengineering methods in fundamental ways instead of making nick of time adjustments of littleconsequence.The Systems Engineering Capstone Course has been part of the degree plan since the mid1980s, and at the beginning of 2000, it was redesigned as part of a curricular change to beeven more profitable for students. The following paragraphs describe the redesign criteria,the course is it is presently, and some of its impact on student learning.Capstone Courses AdvantagesHigher education has used Capstone Courses for a long time, but they have come to the forein recent years. The reasons are many: many institutions have found that students today aremore focused on practical activities, doing things (Keller, 20046); recent
engineering programs. The first effort involved the development, pilot, anddissemination of an undergraduate, systems engineering course2 designed for integration with thesenior capstone design experience required in all undergraduate engineering degree programs. Atthe undergraduate level, the goal is to teach the fundamentals of systems engineering such thatfuture practicing engineers are familiar with the concepts and processes to be exercised further inthe work environment. Given NASA’s involvement in the course development, the perspective isfrom the aerospace community with an emphasis on what it takes to put a space system together.The systems engineering course approach tends toward the practical rather than the theoreticalwith an emphasis on
also include preliminary results from a pilot study linking self-reportedtrends in student learning to teaching techniques. In this study, we analyze assessment data fromlectureLess and identify inflection points in the reported levels of comprehension, motivationand interaction. These inflection points are matched to corresponding video highlights of theassessed classroom session. The teacher then evaluates the video highlights and makes their ownassessment about the students’ attainment of the evaluated learning dimensions.1. IntroductionIn education, the role of the learner in their own education is fundamental and of much interest tothe teacher. As we know from theories proposed by Bloom1, Perry2, and others, opportunitiesfor the learner
of modern engineers: flexibility to manage rapidly evolving technologies; anability to define as well as solve problems; skill and experience with creativity, entrepreneurship,and public policy implications; and facility with both theory and application.”“… although traditional undergraduate curricula cover the fundamentals of math and science,programming, and problem solving well, they do less well with applications, softwareengineering, and problem identification.”“… few universities seemed to be emphasizing mission- or safety-critical systems and thathands-on project work tends to ignore properties like fault tolerance and robustness.”“…there is a focus on developing new functions over understanding the tools and techniquesneeded to test
Paper ID #9429A ”Software and Systems” Integration Framework for Teaching Require-ments EngineeringRadu F. Babiceanu, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Dr. Radu Babiceanu is an Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical, Computer, Software, and Systems Engineering at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida. He holds a Ph.D. degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech, a M.S. in Mechanical Engineer- ing from the University of Toledo, and a B.S. degree in Manufacturing Engineering from the Polytechnic University of Bucharest. His research provides a systems engineering
Systems Engineering department and helped launch the Masters of Systems Engineering and PhD in Engineering Science and Systems programs at UALR. He has taught a variety of courses in systems and electrical engineering program and written a book titled ’Fundamental Engineering Optimization Methods.’ His research interests include linear systems theory, biomedical engineering, biomechatronics, and computational intelligence. He is a member of IEEE, IET (UK), ASEE, IASTED, and Sigma Xi (former president of the Sigma Xi Central Arkansas Chapter). More information on him is available at syen.ualr.edu/kxiqbal/.Dr. Gary T. Anderson, University of Arkansas, Little Rock Gary Anderson has taught engineering to non-traditional
short“lecture” that students could replay, rewind, fast forward, and pause as they viewed online. Mostvideo Lessons followed a similar format, presenting equations and theory followed by anexample solved using one of several methods.While it is difficult to convey the nature of the video lessons in a written format, the image inFigure 1 may help to clarify. Page 25.706.4 Figure 1 – Sample Lesson SlideThe underlying PowerPoint™ was carefully designed to allow the Instructor room to animatemost slides, by writing on the computer screen, as the Lesson progressed. This mimicked the actof writing on the board in