SE to the rescue?

I've been a member of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for almost 15 years. As part of my membership in this 125 year old society I get their wonderful magazine, IEEE Spectrum. Every now and then they publish an article that just highlights the need for a stronger and more vibrant Systems Engineering profession. This months lead article did that in spades as it outlined the woes and tribulations of DoD's Weapons Acquisitions System. The article is appropriately called: "What's Wrong with Weapons Acquisitions?"

Not only does this article delve into the an area I've spent most of my career in trying to figure out, but it also explains how Systems Engineers are the key components to the process. Only problem is there are way too few of us.

"Another factor contributing to program failure is the shortage of technically trained people, especially systems engineers. A systems engineer translates technical needs into an overall system architecture that creates the best operational capability at the most affordable cost. As a project proceeds and goals or needs shift, systems engineers have to determine the difficult but necessary cost, schedule, and performance trade-offs to keep everything on track. As programs get bigger and more complex, the need for rigorous systems engineering increases."

Such a short paragraph but such a powerful explanation in how Systems Engineering brings the technical, operational and the programmatic together in beautiful harmony. Makes me proud of our humble profession. But as one of my other blog post pointed out, we are facing a shortage of engineers in general. Definitely a dilemma which will effect our future in profound ways. Only time will be able to tell us how bad it'll be.

But this article also show us that there is hero potential within every Systems Engineer. It's a great thing to be able to bring sanity to a broken process, to wrestle order out of the chaos, to bring the best solution to a profoundly perplexing predicament. If you know a Systems Engineer please give him or her a hug today. Theirs is a noble endeavour. Encourage them to greatness.

The Dark Side of "Moore's Law"

Back in the mid-60's Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, predicted that number of transistors on an integrated circuit will double approximately every two years. This become the infamous Moore's Law. And the electronics industry has strived to maintain this law. Of course this is great for electronic consumers -- they can buy more computational power with every upgrade of computer, laptop, cell phone and game console. But the down side is these same electronic consumers now own computers, laptops, cell phones and game consoles that will quickly become technically obsolesce.

How many of you can relate to this story: A few years back my cell phone was showing it's age so I wanted to get a replacement. And I wanted the same exact one -- I knew the functions, I knew how to work it. It was simple. It just made phone calls. I liked it. A lot. So I'm in the wireless phone store explaining this to the sales clerk who gently explained that my phone model is no longer being made and that I can't even get a similar one either because all phones now have camera functions and texting capabilities as well. So I was FORCED into upgrading to the latest whizzbang phone. Ugh!

IEEE Spectrum magazine has a wonderful article from their April 2008 issue, entitled "Trapped on Technology's Trailing Edge" and it outlines the "dark side of Moore's Law." Technology obsolescence. It's an issue that needs to be addressed "upfront and early" when it comes to developing a new system whose life expectancy is more then five years old. And if it has anything to do with the military then believe me when I tell you it'll be more then five years old. Because it takes more then five years just to design, develop, and test a system before it gets fielded.

So when designing a system keep these lessons in the forefront of your mind and address the obsolescence issue with the same dedication and fortitude as you do when you design to meet the customer requirements. If you don't it will bite you in the end.

Will the lack of Engineers affect our future?

Here's an interesting article: "Lack of Engineers at Crisis Point, Experts Say" from our local free newspaper The Business Monthly. We're basically facing a "brain drain" in the aerospace and defense industries. What will happen as the qualified workforce -- in other words, capable engineers -- becomes smaller and smaller?? Does that mean the future is in jeopardy??
Keep this "engineer scarcity crisis" in mind as you read about the fact that the Future is Now. An article by Joel Achenbach from the Sunday, April 13, 2008 Washington Post. Here's a quote worth noting:

Science is becoming ever more specialized; technology is increasingly a series of black boxes, impenetrable to but a few. Americans' poor science literacy means that science and technology exist in a walled garden, a geek ghetto. We are a technocracy in which most of us don't really understand what's happening around us. We stagger through a world of technological and medical miracles. We're zombified by progress.[Christine Peterson, vice president of Foresight Nanotech Institute] has one recommendation: Read science fiction, especially "hard science fiction" that sticks rigorously to the scientifically possible. "If you look out into the long-term future and what you see looks like science fiction, it might be wrong," she says. "But if it doesn't look like science fiction, it's definitely wrong."

So much to discuss within these few sentences -- like "We are a technocracy" --?? What does that mean? When ever I hear of any kind of "--ocracy" I think of rulers, and not the nice kind either -- In a Theocracy the religious fanatics rule --- In a Monocracy the King rules -- In an Aristocracy the snooty people rule. So does that mean in a technocracy the technocrats rule? So I'm thinking any "--ocracy" other then Democracy is most likely a bad thing. But the thing is I don't think we have an elite class of engineers that run society. And isn't that what author Kurt Vonnegut outlined in his first novel, Player Piano? But here's a thought -- Would Achenbach's or Vounnegut's concern become valid, if we do have fewer engineers in the future? If it does get to the point where only a few can understand our world's underlying technology then -- wouldn't they be paid more, perhaps be respected more, and finally, by default, be more in control? Is a technocracy on the horizon because of the "engineer scarcity crisis?" So maybe you should encourage your kids to become engineers. The more engineers there are the more likely we'll avert this technocracy scenario. We do want to avert this, don't we?

Another great aspect of Achenbach's article is the suggestion to use "science fiction" as a means to understand the future. As if to prove his point he fills his article with Sci-Fi references, from Star Trek to Godzilla. But here's my concern . . .science fiction show us what technology is possible. But as the population of engineers decreases then logically wouldn't take longer for that future to get here. Maybe the article shouldn't be called "The Future is Now" but rather "The Future has Been Delayed Due to Technical Difficulties." Wow, depressing thought. And I really want my Jet Pack! So maybe you should encourage your kids to become engineers. It's the only way to stop the present from staying that way.

Is there any way we can solve this "engineer scarcity crisis"? According to the Business Monthly article we need to convince young people that engineering is, simply put, "cool." Well I can attest to that. After all, we're the ones who make the future happen. And that is way "cool."