System Engineering and the Two Cultures of Engineering Michael D.

Griffin Administrator National Aeronautics and S ace Administration !oeing "ecture Series #urdue $ni%ersity &' March &(()

Most of you will have heard of Baron Charles Percy (C. P.) Snow, and will know of his observations on the breakdown in communication between the humanities and the sciences. Trained as a scientist, Snow served as Minister for Technolo y under Prime Minister !arold "ilson, yet was more famous as an author, with si#teen novels and ei ht works of non$fiction to his credit. !e would be near the to% of nearly any list of scientifically literate authors, or of literarily$ talented scientists. Snow develo%ed his theme in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, in &'(', and e#%lored it further in The Two Cultures and a Second Look, in &')*. !e decried the decline in standards of hi her education, and in %articular what he viewed as the almost willful i norance by the modern cultural elite of scientific fundamentals. +n a summary of his theme, Snow noted, ,- ood many times + have been %resent at atherin s of %eo%le who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thou ht hi hly educated and who have with considerable usto been e#%ressin their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. .nce or twice + have been %rovoked and have asked the com%any how many of them could describe the, Second /aw of Thermodynamics, the law of entro%y. The res%onse was cold0 it was also ne ative. 1et + was askin somethin which is about the scientific e2uivalent of0 3!ave you read a work of Shakes%eare4s53

+ now believe that if + had asked an even sim%ler 2uestion 6 such as, 7what do you mean by mass, or acceleration57, which is the scientific e2uivalent of sayin , 3Can you read53 6 not more than one in ten of the hi hly educated would have felt that + was s%eakin the same lan ua e. So the reat edifice of modern %hysics oes u%, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had. "hile Snow4s criticisms did not o unanswered 8 most famously by literary critic 9.:. /eavis 8 the essential truth of his observations was, and is, widely acknowled ed. !is elucidation of the ,two cultures; has become a societal %aradi m, a bum%er$sticker %hrase to describe the basic cultural se%aration between the arts and the sciences that is clearly visible to most of us. <ven those who know nothin else of Snow4s work are %robably familiar with this one %hrase. Today, + want to discuss the two cultures that, if we think about it, we find embedded in the %rofession we call =en ineerin 4, and how we are linkin them, and must link them, throu h the disci%line known as =system en ineerin 4, a %roduct of the -merican aeros%ace sector. /et us first e#%lore the nature of the ,two cultures; in en ineerin . + have always loved the view of the en ineerin %rofession ca%tured by the reat Theodore von >arman when he said, ,Scientists study the world as it is? en ineers create the world that has never been.; /ess elo2uently, en ineers are desi ners? they synthesi@e knowled e to %roduce new artifacts. Aon >arman s%eaks to what most of us, and certainly most laymen, would consider the essence of en ineerin 0 en ineers create thin s to solve %roblems. But all of us who are en ineers know that the en ineerin %rofession also has a rich scientific side, the analysis of these artifacts and the %rediction of their behavior under various environmental and o%erational conditions. -da%tin von >arman4s observations, it may be said that engineering science is the study of that %art of the world that has been created by man. Sadly, many students have been led to believe that en ineerin science is en ineerin B +n a curriculum of &CD or more credits leadin to a bachelor4s de ree in a branch of en ineerin , the ty%ical student is re2uired to take one, or maybe two, courses in desi n. <verythin else, aside from eneral$education re2uirements, focuses on the analysis, rather than the creation, of en ineered

obEects. Fraduate education often has no desi n orientation at all. So, en ineerin as tau ht really deals with only a %art of en ineerin as it is %racticed. This trait is so %ronounced that en ineers who have s%ent their careers 8 even widely$reco ni@ed careers 8 in desi n and develo%ment, focusin on the creation of obEects rather than the creation of %a%ers for %ublication in refereed Eournals, are essentially unem%loyable, hence unem%loyed, in academia. Go matter how well credentialed a %racticin en ineer may be, when the inevitable search committee meets to rank the a%%licants for a de%artment chair, or a tenured %osition, it is a rare desi ner who can offer even the minimum of ,academic; 2ualifications e#%ected of an a%%licant for the %osition of assistant %rofessor. Some universities have reco ni@ed this inherent bias and its conse2uences for the trainin of their students, and have sou ht to remedy it by creatin titles such as ,Professor of Practice;, or similar a%%ellations. But it is a truism that the lon er the title, the less im%ortant the Eob. So this term serves only to em%hasi@e the %oint that these %articular faculty members are not ,real; %rofessors, hired and %romoted on their merits in a strai ht$u% com%etition amon all candidates. .ne wonders if this is the messa e we really want to send to those who will desi n 8 or not 8 the world of the ne#t eneration. But if the %resent e#cessive focus on en ineerin science in the en ineerin curriculum is of concern, it is nonetheless true that the fundamental difference between modern en ineerin and that %racticed %rior to the <nli htenment is the develo%ment of formal analytical methods and their a%%lication to man$made obEects. This has allowed the %rediction of %erformance, and the limits of that %erformance, in the environment in which a iven device must function. +t has allowed the refinement of desi ns throu h methods more so%histicated than the trial$and$error techni2ues to which our ancestors were limited. +t has enormously shortened the time re2uired for a desi n cycle for the obEects we create. - control system en ineer mi ht say that the formal methods of en ineerin science have %roduced an enormously im%roved feedback %ath for the en ineerin desi n loo%. More sim%ly, en ineerin science has taken en ineerin beyond artisanshi%. But, interestin ly, the develo%ment of formal methods has not altered in any way the fundamental nature of desi n, which still de%ends, as it did in anti2uity, u%on the eneration of a conce%t for a %rocess, techni2ue, or device by which a iven %roblem mi ht be solved. The en ineerin sciences have %rovided better, and certainly 2uicker, insi ht for the desi ner into the suitability of the conce%t than can be %rovided solely by buildin it and e#aminin its %erformance in its intended a%%lication. But a human bein must still intuit the conce%t. "e have no

idea how we do that. -nd until we do, we have little ho%e of develo%in a formal method by which it can be accom%lished. +t must be said that some %ro ress in this area has been throu h research into , enetic al orithms;, which use the tools of en ineerin science and mathematical simulation to e#%lore the conse2uences of iterative random chan es to a iven desi n. The %erformance of the desi n is evaluated a ainst obEective criteria. +f a chan e results in a net im%rovement it is retained? otherwise, it is discarded. +n this manner, the desi n ,evolves; to a hi her state of suitability to its intended ,environment; throu h the %ressures of artificial, rather than natural, ,selection;. Modern en ineerin analysis tools offer the ability to conduct what is essentially a very lar e number of randomi@ed desi n cycles in an acce%table %eriod of time. But this %rocess does not seem, at least to me, to be much akin to the intuitive synthesis of a human brain when it lea%s almost instantly from a %erce%tion of a %roblem to an idea for its solution. ,Creativity;, used in this sense, remains thus far the sole %rovince of biolo ical com%uters. !owever, my collea ue, G-S- -ssociate -dministrator /isa Porter, has %ointed out to me that, %recisely because enetic al orithms work differently and %roduce different results than would a human desi ner, they can offer new, unusual, and %otentially useful solutions for consideration by humans. So as the field of enetic al orithms matures, it may well be that the methods of en ineerin science will yield solid contributions to the synthetic as%ect of en ineerin . But at least for now, there remains an artistic side of en ineerin , and it is fully as much an art for its %ractitioners as any %aintin , scul%ture, %oem, son , dance, movie, %lay, culinary master%iece, or literary work. The difference between the cultural and en ineerin arts lies not so much in the manner of creation of a iven work, but in the standards by which that work is Eud ed. +n the humanistic disci%lines, human aesthetics sets the standard by which merit is assi ned to a finished %roduct. +n the end, aesthetic sensibilities vary with %lace and time, and are ultimately matters of o%inion. The role of o%inion in evaluatin a work of en ineerin is, by com%arison, much restricted. +n en ineerin , more obEective methods are em%loyed to Eud e the de ree to which the com%leted work meets the standards established for it, or fails to do so. This brin s us to the role of failure in en ineerin desi n. :e ardless of the so%histication of the analytical methods brou ht to bear, they are a%%lied to a theoretical model of a device o%eratin in a theoretical model of the real world.

The model is not reality, and the differences %roduce o%%ortunities for the real device to fail to o%erate as intended in the real environment. -n evolutionary biolo ist mi ht say that the a% between model and reality is an environmental niche in which failure, like a new s%ecies, can thrive. Civil en ineer and author !enry Petroski has, in a series of essays and books, e#%licitly noted the crucial role of failure in %roducin ultimately successful desi ns. +n Success Through Failure: The Paradox of Design, and other works, Petroski establishes the %oint that new desi ns, or successive iterations and refinements of a basic desi n, have as their essential %ur%ose the elimination of failure modes known to be inherent in earlier desi ns. !e further ar ues, by means of many e#am%les, that desi ners must o beyond merely ensurin success? they must strive to antici%ate the ways in which a desi n mi ht fail. Freat desi ners and successful desi ns incor%orate, in advance, methods to miti ate such antici%ated failures. But in recent decades human artifacts have become increasin ly com%le#, buildin u%on and e#tendin former art and, es%ecially, combinin dis%arate elements of established art in new ways. This has been accom%lished at an astonishin %ace, a cause and a result of Moore4s /aw, the a%%ro#imate two$year doublin time of com%utational throu h%ut, which has held sway for several decades. "hile a lar e brid e cannot %ro%erly be considered a ,sim%le; structure, involvin as it does the interaction of thousands of com%onent %arts, it clearly %ales in com%le#ity relative to, say, a s%ace shuttle, which relies for its success u%on the interaction of millions of %arts derived from a do@en technical disci%lines. 9ailure in com%le# systems can arise in so many more ways than in sim%ler systems that the 2uantitative difference ultimately %roduces 2ualitatively different behavior. +t becomes unreasonable to e#%ect, other than throu h the harshest of hindsi ht, that a %articular failure mode mi ht have been or ou ht to have been antici%ated. +ndeed, results from the modern study of com%le#ity theory indicate that com%le# systems can e#%erience hi hly non$linear de%artures from normal state$s%ace traEectories 8 i.e., ,failure; 8 without anythin bein ,wron ;. -mon the first to study com%le# en ineerin systems was Charles Perrow, in the landmark work Normal ccidents. Perrow ar ued that addin additional %rocesses, safety measures, and alerts to com%le# systems 8 the traditional desi n a%%roach to im%rovin system safety 8 was inherently flawed, because for com%le#, ti htly$cou%led systems and or ani@ations, failure is inevitable.

Perrow is a sociolo ist, not an en ineer, but his %oints are well taken. Those of us who are aviators, or who are familiar with the history of aviation, can %oint to numerous hi h$%rofile accidents where the crew became occu%ied with minor anomalies and their warnin systems, only to fly a %erfectly ood air%lane into the round. Most of us can also cite analo ous incidents from other fields. 1et, we have evolved com%le# systems for ood reasons, and we will clearly continue to do so. The modern air trans%ort aircraft is an incredibly com%le# device, and the system within which such aircraft o%erate is far more so. But in the last five decades this system has revolutioni@ed world society, culture, and economics. +t will not be shut down merely because it cannot be made %erfectly reliable. Gor will we do so with any of the other com%le# a%%urtenances of modern society which did not e#ist a century a o, but which are now deemed essential. So, if we are not to eschew the use of com%le# systems, how do we make them as reliable as %ossible5 believe that the answer to the above 2uestion is ,system en ineerin ;. This is an entirely a%%ro%riate answer for the Boein /ecture here at Purdue Hniversity, for system en ineerin has evolved as a disci%line of modern en ineerin from its roots in the -merican aeros%ace system develo%ment culture. System en ineerin and its allied disci%line of systems mana ement are treated from a historical %ers%ective in the e#cellent te#t by Ste%hen Iohnson, The Secret of !ollo. Iohnson retraces Petroski4s %ath, showin the develo%ment of system$oriented disci%lines to be the natural reaction to the failure of early, com%le# aeros%ace systems, includin lar e aircraft, ballistic missiles, and s%acecraft. 9rom its first introduction into the en ineerin le#icon, ,system en ineerin ; has been a 2uestion$be in term. +n earlier times, it was considered by many in the traditional en ineerin disci%lines to be a cate ory without a subEect matter. <ven today + find the term to be, in my o%inion, misused and misunderstood by many who claim to be %ractitioners of the art. So, havin s%ent what + believe to be the most %roductive %art of my career as a system en ineer, let me say a few words about what + believe system en ineerin is, and what it is not. System en ineerin is the art and science of develo%in an o%erable system ca%able of meetin re2uirements within im%osed constraints. The definition is somewhat inde%endent of scale, and so these words are useful only if one understands that it is the bi $%icture view which is taken here. "e are talkin here

about develo%in an air%lane, a s%acecraft, a %ower %lant, a com%uter network. "e are not talkin about desi nin a beam to carry a %articular load across a known s%an.

System en ineerin is a holistic, inte rative disci%line, wherein the contributions of structural en ineers, electrical en ineers, mechanism desi ners, %ower en ineers, and many, many more disci%lines are wei hted and considered and balanced, one a ainst another, to %roduce a coherent whole that is not dominated by the view from the %ers%ective of a sin le disci%line. System en ineerin is about tradeoffs and com%romises, about eneralists rather than s%ecialists. System en ineerin is not about the details of re2uirements and interfaces between and amon subsystems. Such details are im%ortant, of course, in the same way that accurate accountin is im%ortant to the Chief 9inancial .fficer of an or ani@ation. But accurate accountin will not distin uish between a ood financial %lan and a bad one, nor hel% to make a bad one better. -ccurate control of interfaces and re2uirements is necessary to ood system en ineerin , but no amount of care in such matters can make a %oor desi n conce%t better. System en ineerin is about ettin the ri ht desi n. Com%le# systems usually come to rief, when they do, not because they fail to accom%lish their nominal %ur%ose. "hile e#ce%tions certainly e#ist, it remains true that almost all systems which %roceed %ast the %reliminary desi n %hase will, in fact, accom%lish the tasks for which they were e#%licitly desi ned. Com%le# systems ty%ically fail because of the unintended conse2uences of their desi n, the thin s they do that were not intended to be done. The Second /aw of Thermodynamics is sufficient to uarantee that most of these thin s will be harmfulB + like to think of system en ineerin as bein fundamentally concerned with minimi@in , in a com%le# artifact, unintended interactions between elements desired to be se%arate. <ssentially, this addresses Perrow4s concerns about ti htly cou%led systems. System en ineerin seeks to assure that elements of a com%le# artifact are cou%led only as intended. C.P. Snow believed that mutual com%rehension and a%%reciation between the arts and the sciences, which had e#isted in earlier times, had been erased by his time. !e did not find a means to restore it. + sometimes think that the a% between synthesis and analysis in en ineerin is as wide as that between the arts and the sciences of Snow4s ,two cultures;. But the fact remains that desi ners sim%ly do

not think or work in the same way as analysts, and this does on occasion %roduce a certain co nitive dissonance. "hen it occurs in the conte#t of a com%le# system develo%ment, catastro%he is a likely result. System en ineerin is the link which has evolved between the art and science of en ineerin . The system en ineer desi ns little or nothin of the finished %roduct? rather, he seeks a balanced desi n in the face of o%%osin interests and interlockin constraints. The system en ineer is not an analyst? rather, he focuses analytical resources u%on those assessments deemed to be %articularly im%ortant, from amon the universe of %ossible analyses which mi ht be %erformed, but whose com%letion would not necessarily best inform the final desi n. There is an art to knowin where to %robe and what to %ass by, and every system en ineer knows it. /ike other branches of en ineerin , system en ineerin has evolved out of the need to obviate dramatic failures in com%le# systems. Such failures are not new. .ne of my favorite books is a fascinatin te#t entitled , Structures: or" #h$ Things Don%t Fall Down&, by Prof. I.<. Fordon of the Hniversity of :eadin , <n land, written in &'JK, at the end of Prof. Fordon4s lon career as a structural analyst. +t is aimed at a level a%%ro%riate to an intelli ent technical %rofessional in any field. + recommend it hi hly. :e ardin the matter of s%ectacular en ineerin failures, + 2uote Professor Fordon (%%s. *(C$*(*)0 ,L there are, of course, a certain number of reat dramatic accidents which, for a while, mono%oli@e the headlines. .f such a kind were L Mnumerous disasters followN L These are very often intensely human and intensely %olitical affairs, caused basically by ambition and %ride. L .ne can at once reco ni@e a certain inevitability about the whole %rocedure. Hnder the %ressure of %ride and Eealousy and ambition and %olitical rivalry, attention is concentrated on the day$to$day details. The broad Eud ements, the generalshi! of engineering, Mmy em%hasisN end by bein im%ossible. The whole thin becomes unsto%%able and slides to disaster before one4s eyes. L; +n thirty$si# years of en ineerin %ractice, of many kinds and in many situations, + have not seen a more a%%ro%riate assessment of what is truly im%ortant in en ineerin . "e must of course et the details ri ht. !owever, to be a com%lete en ineer, one must also master what Professor Fordon calls ,the eneralshi% of en ineerin ;.

+ will be frank. <ducators, and + include myself, for + have s%ent many years as an adEunct %rofessor at various institutions, are far less certain how to teach , eneralshi%; than we are of how to teach the laws of thermodynamics. -nd yet it is clear that an understandin of the broad issues, the bi %icture, is so much more influential in determinin the ultimate success or failure of an enter%rise than is the mastery of any iven technical detail. The understandin of the or ani@ational and technical interactions in our systems, em%hatically includin the human bein s who are a %art of them, is the %resent$day frontier of both en ineerin education and %ractice.