scholarly journals A Systems Approach to Establishing an Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Institute

Systems ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Gregory Harris ◽  
Lauren Caudle
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Advanced Manufacturing ◽  
Physical Systems ◽  
National Network ◽  
Engineering Discipline ◽  
Manufacturing Innovation ◽  
Engineering Effort

Systems engineering is a methodology where an interdisciplinary approach is applied, using systems thinking, to the development of a system of interest. The systems engineering discipline has emerged as an effective way to guide the engineering of complex systems, but has been applied most readily in the realm of cyber physical systems. In some circles of the Federal Government, the mention of systems engineering processes immediately leads people to think of a long, inefficient effort due to an often applied bureaucratic approach, where the focus is on documentation rather than the development of the system of interest, which comes from a view that the product of the systems engineering effort is the document, not the system itself. In this paper, the authors describe the application of systems thinking and the systems engineering process to the design and creation of an Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Institute (MII, part of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation) established under Department of Defense (DoD) authority for the Office of the President, that was swift, efficient, and implemented without formality.

The Möbius Strip of Lean Engineering and Systems Engineering

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz-Josef Kahlen ◽  
Shannon Flumerfelt ◽  
Anabela C. Alves ◽  
Anna Bella Siriban Manalang
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Engineering Discipline ◽  
Production And Distribution ◽  
Value Streams ◽  
Lean Engineering

Lean Engineering has come a long way from its first conception in the 1940s. What started as a production philosophy to enable manufacturing in Japan under severe resource constraints has developed into a globally adopted, widely aspired, often misinterpreted, and sometimes poorly understood, way and means of “doing business”. Short-sighted implementations of lean engineering in industrialized countries in a first wave in the 1970s were quickly accompanied by the slogan ‘lean is mean’ because of the focus on short-term financial gains at the expense of a complete understanding of the entire production and value chains. In a second wave in the 1990s, the focus of lean engineering implementations shifted to the core objective of lean engineering philosophies, the establishment of flow in the value chain through standardization. In parallel, Systems Engineering has continuously developed as a discipline which has moved away from the integration of components and subsystems, to the co-development of such units and building blocks of engineering and engineered products. This continued development of Systems Engineering as a discipline reflects the growing demand for systems thinking competency, to challenge the complexity of manufacturing and operations in an environment where product development, production and distribution is spread over large, not co-located teams on all continents. In this paper, the authors tie together the developments, tools and methodologies of Lean Engineering and Systems Engineering, and they show the growing similarity of both disciplines. In fact, these disciplines often describe the same effects, processes, and challenges in the workplace. The similarity has grown to a level where value streams in production or service delivery are analyzed and described in terms of one engineering discipline, while following methodologies and applying tools stemming from the other engineering discipline. The authors advocate that the debate should therefore not be over which engineering discipline to follow, but what tools and methodologies are most appropriate to enhance systems thinking competency, and to understand complexity in systems.

Teaching cyber physical systems engineering

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juho Makio ◽  
Elena Makio-Marusik ◽  
Eugeny Yablochnikov ◽  
Valery Arckhipov ◽  
Kirill Kipriianov
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Cyber Physical Systems ◽  
Physical Systems

scholarly journals Using Systems Thinking to Improve Tourism and Hospitality Research Quality and Relevance: A Critical Review and Conceptual Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-172
Author(s):  
Gianna Moscardo
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Problem Area ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Theoretical Concepts ◽  
Tourism And Hospitality ◽  
Published Research

This paper argues that that much published tourism and hospitality research has had little influence on tourism or hospitality practice especially with regard to the problems of sustainability because of a failure to use systems thinking to guide research questions and approaches. This critical review and conceptual paper demonstrates how a systems thinking approach could be used to improve both the relevance of, and theoretical development in, tourism and hospitality research in the area of sustainability. This paper reviewed recent published research into tourism’s social impacts to demonstrate the power of taking a systems approach to map out the research problem area. It then critically reviewed the use of concepts from psychology in published research into guest engagement in sustainability programs in hospitality businesses to demonstrate the value of systems thinking for organising theoretical concepts. In both of the reviewed areas the overwhelming conclusion was that the majority of the research lacked both practical relevance and was based on inappropriate or deficient theoretical understanding.

TOWARD A THEORY OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
George A. Hazelrigg ◽  
Donald G. Saari
Keyword(s):  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Engineering Community ◽  
Engineering Discipline ◽  
Abstract Approach ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Engineering Practices ◽  
Physical Laws ◽  
Simple Preference ◽  
Sizable Fraction ◽  
Current Systems

Abstract The derivation of a theory of systems engineering has long been complicated by the fact that there is little consensus within the systems engineering community regarding precisely what systems engineering is, what systems engineers do, and what might constitute reasonable systems engineering practices. To date, attempts at theories fail to accommodate even a sizable fraction of the current systems engineering community, and they fail to present a test of validity of systems theories, analytical methods, procedures or practices. This paper presents a more theoretical and more abstract approach to the derivation of a theory of systems engineering that has the potential to accommodate a broad segment of the systems engineering community and present a validity test. It is based on a simple preference statement: “I want the best system I can get.” From this statement, it is argued that a very rich theory can be obtained. Whereas most engineering disciplines are framed around a core set of widely accepted physical laws, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first attempt to frame an engineering discipline around a preference.

Cognitive risk culture and advanced roles of actors in risk governance: a case study

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruchi Agarwal ◽  
Sanjay Kallapur
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cognitive Risk ◽  
Risk Culture ◽  
The Uk

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore the best practices for improving risk culture and defining the role of actors in risk governance.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents an exemplar case of a British insurance company by using a qualitative case research approach.FindingsThe case study shows how the company was successful in changing from a compliance-based and defensive risk culture to a cognitive risk culture by using a systems thinking approach. Cognitive risk culture ensures that everybody understands risks and their own roles in risk governance. The change was accomplished by adding an operational layer between the first and second lines of defense and developing tools to better communicate risks throughout the organization.Practical implicationsPractitioners can potentially improve risk governance by using the company’s approach. The UK regulator’s initiative to improve risk culture can potentially be followed by other regulators.Originality/valueThis is among the few studies that describe actual examples of how a company can improve risk culture using the systems approach and how systems thinking simultaneously resolves several other issues such as poor risk reporting and lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document