AbstractSystems engineering is currently characterized by conflicting and contradictory opinions on its nature. The paper begins by describing the evolution of systems engineering in the National Council on Systems Engineering (NCOSE)/ International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) and the difficulty in defining and differentiating systems engineering as a discipline. The paper then identifies and discusses six different and somewhat contradictory camps or perspectives of systems engineering. After identifying the cause of the contradictions the paper suggests one way to reconcile the camps is to dissolve the problem to distinguish between the activity known as systems engineering and the role of the systems engineer with a return to the old pre‐NCOSE systems engineering paradigm. The paper then continues by testing the hypothesis and shows that systems engineering is a discipline that can be differentiated from other disciplines. However, it is not a traditional engineering discipline.

This paper discusses the need for competent systems engineers, the differences between nine current ways of assessing competencies competency models and the difficulty of comparing the competency models due to the different ways each model groups the competencies. The paper then introduces a competency model maturity framework CMMF for benchmarking competency models of systems engineers. The paper benchmarks the nine models using the CMMF and a surprising finding was an error of omission in all nine models. The paper shows that the CMMF can also be used as the basis for developing an original model for a specific organization in a specific time and place and concludes with suggestions for future research. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 15

Systems engineering is presently demonstrating the characteristics of being in the emerging stages of a discipline. A discipline generally matures when an overriding axiom is presented and accepted by the majority of practitioners. This paper presents one such high level underpinning axiom for systems engineering that has the potential to unite the disparate camps within systems engineering and enable the practice of systems engineering in all application domains to achieve successes similar to those it achieved in the National Aeronautical and Aerospace (NASA) environment in the 1960's and 1970's. The axiom does this by focusing on the solution system rather than on systems engineering.

This paper documents (1) the early phases of using systems engineering to develop a conceptual system - the system being developed is a systems engineering body of knowledge (SEBoK) and (2) the findings and opportunities generated in those early phases. The approach was based on identifying activities specific to systems engineering, as opposed to the broad raft of activities that systems engineers might undertake, according to their role. An activity-based definition of systems engineering vs. non-systems engineering role-based definition was developed. The second part of the paper identifies five types of systems engineers, discusses the evolution of systems engineering in terms of those five types, and hypothesizes that a major cause of the failure of systems engineering is the allocation of inappropriate types of systems engineers to early lifecycle phase systems engineering activities. The paper concludes with some insights and recommendations for further study.