|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letters
To The Faculty Newsletter:
I am somewhat confused by the essay by Professor Roos in the September/October issue of the Faculty Newsletter. To begin with, the idea of systems needs some clarification. In the days of the Radiation Lab, I worked in a "components" group. Each such group was responsible for the design and even the production of a specific component: antenna, magnetron, duplexer, display, etc. These were the elements that the "systems" groups used to design and build specific radar systems. The systems were, by definition, more complex than the individual components. The systems engineers had to produce something that would work, that would satisfy the needs of the user (the armed services), and would operate within the user's organizational constraints. (A "big" radar system might have a total of several hundred vacuum tubes ). From the description by Roos, I gather that these were not the kind of systems presently under discussion. Later on, in the 1950s, Lincoln Lab set out to design a radar network that would cover all of the Northeastern U.S. With its multiple radars, communication systems, and computers, these looked more like the big systems now under discussion. Again, the customer was the Air Force, and there was little or no direct interaction with the civilian society.
In the 1960s and 1970s under the leadership of Professor Corbato, the EE Department designed and built the Compatable Time Sharing System, and then the Multix computer system. These required the coordination of engineers and programmers at MIT and at other participating companies. None of the latter felt that they were working for MIT, and it required a fair amount of diplomatic skill to keep the whole thing together. These were systems by any reasonable definition.
Today's processor chips have more than a million diodes and transistors on a single chip – they are indeed complex. However, they are only components of a desk top or a lap top computer. Somehow, they do not seem to fall within the purview of the Engineering Systems Division.
I believe the focus of the Division is on socio-technical systems – transportation systems, communication systems, airports, Big Digs, etc. Designing and building a complex system, and keeping it on time and within budget is complicated, and there have been many new tools and methodologies developed to prevent a grand plan from turning into a tower of Babel. However, I am concerned that MIT might produce the equivalent of the World War II 90-day-wonder Second Lieutenants, who were often kept alive by their more experienced NCOs. To run one of the BIG systems many sorts of skills are needed. There are lawyers who are needed for their expertise, there are business men who understand how to keep the appropriate number of books, there are professional lobbyists who know how to get the approval of a state legislature, there are labor relations experts, there are spokespersons who can and will explain what someone else really meant, etc. Some years ago, several of us (Professors Bruce, Fano, Siebert, Smullin) wrote a report about Lifelong Education, pointing out that the rapid changes in science and technologies required constant re-education of the engineering workforce. The complexity of socio-technical systems calls for mature leadership. If MIT is serious about making a difference, it should plan a program to educate experienced "working" engineers into the arcana (legal, financial, political, etc) of organizing and running big systems. I would hope that an MIT, newly minted, systems engineer could be trusted to know something substantial about the relevant engineering, by virtue of at least a departmental degree, and several years of work in industry or the equivalent. The worst thing that could happen would be to grant undergraduate degrees in Systems Engineering.
Professor Smullin provides three examples of different systems: Rad/Lab, CTSS/Multics, and socio/technical. Although the three systems differ, they have a common characteristic: complexity. The Rab/Lab example focuses on technical complexity; CTSS/Multics has organizational, as well as technical complexity; and socio/technical systems feature technical, organi-zational, and societal complexity.
The Engineering Systems Division (ESD) is interested in a range of complex systems. The balance between technical, organizational, and societal complexity will vary depending on the particular system. Analyses and design approaches will vary as well. ESD’s objective is to establish Engineering Systems as a new field of study. As such, ESD will develop new approaches, frameworks, and theories to better understand engineering systems behavior and design.
Professor Smullin describes the emergence of socio-technical systems and the implications for engineering education at MIT. He asks “if MIT is serious about making a difference” by planning programs that prepare leaders to develop these socio/technical systems. ESD incorporates successful educational and research programs developed at MIT over the past two decades which have achieved that objective. For example, the Technology and Policy Program (TPP), does as Professor Smullin desires, “educate experienced ‘working engineers’ into the arcana (legal, financial, political, etc.) of organizing and running big systems.” The theme of TPP is “engineers with a difference” since TPP requires that students have a technical background, and the program combines engin-eering with social and management science.
TPP is but one example of the existing MIT professional practice programs in engineering systems. Other ESD programs, such as Leaders for Manufacturing and System Design and Management, also broaden the traditional engineering science based education. An objective of ESD is to build upon these successful educational programs and provide more educational and research opportunities for students in engineering systems. Many of the initiatives will be undertaken in partnership with the Engineering School departments.
Professor Smullin does not advocate granting undergraduate degrees in system engineering. We agree; ESD does not plan an undergraduate major in engineering systems. However, several MIT departments have expressed an interest in working with ESD to develop an engineering systems minor.
After World War II, MIT pioneered in developing engineering science and transforming the engineering profession. We believe the develop-ment of engineering systems will have a similar impact on engineering education and practice in the twenty-first century.
To The Faculty Newsletter:
I like the Newsletter and think that you folks are doing good work on behalf of all of us.
I would like to see a little more controversy in the articles:
I am sure there are many more "hot" topics to deal with in the Newsletter.
[For one perspective on the new MIT/company partnerships, see "From The Faculty Chair." Ed.]
Dear Professor Hildebidle:
I try to make sure the Faculty Newsletter does not stay in the "still to read" pile very long. Now you have given me a further impetus. Although the September/October Faculty Newsletter contained several articles on issues that, as an administrative staffer, I am personally very involved in (e.g., Y2K, administrative computer systems, academic support) and much other good information, none of this captured my attention like your "Meditations" did. My congratulations on an entertaining and educational effort. Your perspective is enriching.
It is not my usual custom but I did want to thank you for this enjoyable article.
Gentlesouls:
Why is it that the copiers in the libraries are AWFUL? One can't take out journals to make good copies and the copiers in most/all of the MIT libraries are some of the worst machines I've ever experienced. Outsourced and forgotten? Who's responsible? Does no one complain? Thanks and have a nice day :).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|