What is Systems Engineering.....no, really?

[discofishing]

I'm recently graduated from college and am trying to chart a career path in engineering. Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems industry is pushing for folks to get masters degrees in systems engineering. My limited experience is this: titled and practiced as both an electrical engineer doing hard EE stuff (little under 2 years) and a position (little over 2 years - much better paying one) as a "systems" engineer doing nothing more than technical secretary work, populating excel spreadsheets and "counting" stuff which supposedly translates into "designing/updating architecture", "integrating/interfacing", and "updating processes and writing requirements". I noticed the EE job was WAY more challenging and required HARD SCIENCE/MATH KNOWLEDGE and experience with industry standard tools like MATLAB, Labview, PSPICE, etc etc. The systems engineering position did not seem like REAL engineering at all. Instead it felt like technical program/project management or "engineering awareness" using MS Office as our "engineering tool". I got paid much better as a systems engineer than an electrical engineer, but I can't understand why. The job was boring and didn't require much thought, as all of that was shipped to the folks called suppliers, some of which are overseas. I'd have to say the EE work was awesome, while the SE work was beyond dull. Where is the US industrial base headed?

[neptune]

I'm recently graduated from college and am trying to chart a career path in engineering. Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems industry is pushing for folks to get masters degrees in systems engineering. .....

In most cases, the college degree shows the willingness to work to learn and sometimes even a basic foundation on which to build for today's career requirements. I heartily encourage all to continue education credentials and MS and PHD in the core disciplines and are always rewarded and thus worthwhile. I am a technologist and am always interested in learning new information every day. Even when participating in 4-40 Billion dollar petro/chem projects, I still find time to build my own home computers and stuff them with the latest hardware and software.

I took the "lite" approach and followed EE in computer and communications, with design and manufacturing in my early 8080/ Z80 years. It was very challenging and rewarding. Later, I moved into customer applications (matching the capabilities to the requirements) and because of the D and M background it gave me an edge in optimizing the projects. Now at the end, I am happy with PM and fitting the pieces together to win the competition, within the "scope, schedule and budget" world, thus providing jobs for my manufacturing engineers. The technical and management ladder breakouts are at different levels in different industries but the end result is the same, chief engineer/ CEO. Follow what's "fun", usually that will lead to bigger bucks and eventually to the more interesting career path.

[Roscoe]

Systems Engineering is really a process that goes from requirements to design to production.

[discofishing]

Thanks for the replies. I got the heck out of that position. So far, from what I've seen, systems engineering is beyond worthless. It's like trying to give common sense an engineering title. Every engineer should be able to wear the systems engineering hat at some point.

[rheonomic]

To be fair, good systems engineers are incredibly useful, especially for large programs. In such cases the systems engineer generally works at a higher level integrating the various subsystems (propulsion, flight control, mission systems, etc.).

But if you like to do the really technical stuff, stay away.

I will note that some companies use the title of "systems engineer" fairly broadly, so it's important to look at the req.

[discofishing]

To be fair, good systems engineers are incredibly useful, especially for large programs. In such cases the systems engineer generally works at a higher level integrating the various subsystems (propulsion, flight control, mission systems, etc.).

But if you like to do the really technical stuff, stay away.

I will note that some companies use the title of "systems engineer" fairly broadly, so it's important to look at the req.

I understand someone has to count stuff and make sure the program is meeting requirements. However, the loss of hard engineering knowledge hurts integration VERY badly, from what I've seen. Suppliers, in many cases, are left doing research, design, development and integration, with the prime taking all of the risk. When the prime finds problems with the suppliers subsystems, they demand a fix, and in return the supplier demands more money. I've heard it's expensive to maintain hard-science design engineers on staff. However, those companies that get rid of EE, ME and AE staff are then plusing up on contracts folks and lawyers.

[citanon]

Systems engineering can get pretty sophisticated and interesting with computational modeling tools to propagate design requirements and performance implications up and down system architecture hierarchies.

For example, you can build models to ask if I make a rocket component from 3d printing to replace 4 legacy components how would that affect rocket performance? What happens if I print with titanium instead of inconel?

Or, given a mars mission that needs to do x y and z, how big should my solar panel be? How much extra would it cost if I add a 4th experiment? Would that, for example, change the type of landing modality I have to use on mars? Etc.

Or, you can help to build a digital twin of an aircraft so that predictive maintenance can be performed e.g.: part of what ALIS is trying to accomplish.

I agree however that its best to get into that from a hard engineering background. You can pick up systems engineering skillsets on the job as you advance in your career. These skills are essential if you become becomea systems architect or lead engineer. Pure systems engineers however tend to get less respect and have less influence on engineering teams.

[gtg947h]

I agree however that its best to get into that from a hard engineering background. You can pick up systems engineering skillsets on the job as you advance in your career. These skills are essential if you become becomea systems architect or lead engineer. Pure systems engineers however tend to get less respect and have less influence on engineering teams.

In my experience, pure systems engineers* too often come straight out of school with no practical knowledge, only book learning and theory. Same goes for the kids that come straight out of engineering school in "regular" engineering majors, and go straight into new product design.

New engineers really need to spend a year or two "in the trenches" supporting in-service products, maintenance/overhaul, production, etc. before they're ever allowed to go design something--and even then they need the mentoring of a graybeard for a few years. It's not as glamorous as going straight into design and working on the new shiny stuff, but it would do a lot to address some of the short-sighted decisions and poor design details that those of us on the in-service side have to deal with. And it would mean companies would have to invest that year or two into training someone instead of throwing them at CAD scopes as warm bodies to make drawings.


* In this sense I use "systems engineer" for the people who get into systems architecture, requirements, and all that stuff, not a catch-all for engineers who don't do aero/structures/loads.

[citanon]

A fascinating look at the development of systems engineering in China:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/ ... s-citizens