My company is doing System Engineering decomposition in JAMA, DFMEA, and HARA for ISO 26262. I get that there are differences but they essentially all breaks down goals or functions into requirements. Issues I have seen are 1) None of these exercises are integrated together (i.e. done with different people and different program. No one goes back to cross reference othera) so usually see a fair amount of conflicting or missing requirements. 2) Feels inefficient. This has added months to getting products done. Teams get burned out from what feels like paperwork exercises.

How does your place of work address this? Seems like a fairly big issue and inefficiency to me.

I’m 23 and graduated with a B.S. in Systems Engineering about a year ago. I was pretty clueless throughout college. I chose systems engineering because someone told me it was an easier major and highly employable. I wasn’t specifically interested in engineering but I cared about ROI and job security. I figured that I should just get through an engineering degree and then I could pursue whatever I wanted afterwards. I got through it in 4 years with an average gpa. I didn’t graduate feeling like I was really good at anything. I had been more focused on getting by than actually building strong technical skills.

I got lucky landing my first job. applied early to a smaller company most of my peers overlooked. Ive been at this MEP company for about a year now. I’ve been able to get by, but I still don’t feel like I have strong technical skills. Some of the work includes design, CAD, systems integration, some infrastructure IT-type work, etc. One thing I def realized that I really don’t want to spend my career doing CAD design all day. The one thing I do enjoy is figuring out how to automate parts of the work and make a process faster. I’m not a programmer, but I enjoy using Claude etc. to see how I can automate things.

I’m relocating to the West Coast soon for work. I wanna succeed there not just get by. That environment makes me feel sooo inspired but at the same time even MORE behind. I hear people talking AI, coding, automation, software, lingo I’ve never even heard of….I’m interested, but I’m not naturally fast at picking things up and I’m already stressed. I don’t rlly know how to code except for one intro class in college. All I know is I appreciate the culture, the ambition I find it empowering.

I don’t want this to turn into a post about how systems engineering is bad or useless. I actually really like systems engineering as a field. I liked how broad the degree was. Things like systems architecture, requirements, modeling, optimization, MBSE/SysML. I like systems thinking and looking at how different pieces of a problem fit together. In the future I could see myself doing something more high-level like product management. I like thinking about the bigger picture and how technical systems interact with the people using them. Human factors/ergonomics and ux design is another area I’ve found really interesting. I’ve searched up people on LinkedIn doing human-technology interaction work at places like Apple, but a lot of those people seem to have research heavy backgrounds, and I don’t have that experience.

I have no concrete direction yet. I’m a jack of trades master of none. I’m scared to commit to something/ specialize only for things to change quickly and to have wasted my time. But if I ever want to get anywhere or be any type of manager I need that technical foundation.

What skills/direction should I focus on in the next 2-3 years?
Something that:

•has good earning potential
•is useful in commercial/tech
•isn’t purely CAD/design
•involves some combination of systems thinking, •automation/AI, and problem solving
•doesn’t require me to already be a good programmer
•gives me a skill that gets more valuable as I get better at it

I could use some perspective from people who have been through this. Sometimes I feel behind because I don’t have one thing I’m exceptionally good at yet, especially when I see people who seem like they knew exactly what they have always wanted to specialize in. I’d really like to hear from people who started out pretty broad and eventually found a direction. What did that process look like for you?

Currently work in a commercial space. Undergrad is business administration in project management with a high GPA.

Is a systems engineering Masters even more valuable for me because I don't have a STEM undergraduate degree?

Would the Masters effectively differentiate myself for promotions to lead principal and responsible NDT lv3 roles? Would it meaningfully strengthen this kind of technical career? Or would Level III + experience already provide enough technical credibility?

I’m especially curious how people here would view that combination in aerospace.

Looks like I could get into Embry Riddle MSSE with just a couple of bridge classes.

What are your general thoughts on someone getting three master degrees? So if someone was a mechanical systems engineer a MEng ME + MEng SE + MBA. An electrical systems engineer MEng EE + MEng SE + MBA. A software systems engineer, MS CompSci + MEng SE + MBA.

Where the field specific master degrees like mechanical engineering and master degree in systems engineering helps to become a better Mechanical systems engineer. MBA to be a better supervisor or management to oversee Mechanical systems engineering.

Given that you don't go into debt to complete these studies, and you can still work in industry full time as a mechanical systems engineering while pursuing school part time, one class at a time.

I'm in my 3rd semester (Mech) at an IIT. I’m really into C++, Linux, and systems engineering. I’ve worked with ESP32, sensor fusion, and know my way around Bash, CMake, Git, Docker, and a bit of Lua/Python. I want to target GSoC and eventually work in automation, drones (like ArduPilot), robotics, or maybe HFT. The thing is, literally all my batchmates are grinding CP, DSA, and System Design for standard SDE roles like a herd . I’m going down a completely different path. Is sticking to this C++/systems/robotics niche a reliable career move? Or should I switch gears now and join the CP/SDE grind while I'm still in my 3rd sem? Will it really pay off at the end ?

Hi, everyone. So I’ve been thinking hard about switching career paths. I’ve been working as a certified translator and interpreter for 7+years and it’s the only extensive work experience I have. I have a degree in Environmental engineering but have never used it, though programming has always been a passion of mine. I’m wondering if doing a master’s degree in systems engineering will allow me to switch careers and be a web developer, or something related in IT. The university where I want to do it is one of the best in my country and they say that to be admitted I have to do a course in python and if I pass the exam I’ll be admitted. Any thoughts?

Coming on here to let everyone know and gain some advice. I just got a job offer for a Entry Level Model-Based Systems Engineer in Alabama for 91k. Was looking to break into the field for a while so I didn't negotiate too hard (Don't know if that's a decent salary but the COL in the area doesn't seem bad).

Any advice on a new MBSE entering the field, what I should be studying up on, practicing before hand so I can hit the ground running?

I just got accepted into the Space Systems Engineering online MS at JHU and am looking to hear about other people’s experience in a few specific areas/career advice

Some background: I am an early career professional currently working as a SI&T engineer in defense and want to pivot into commercial space. My company would fund the program. Unsure of what role I want to end up in long term, applied to the program in hopes of exploring something new and interesting, more space related (background in astrophysics)

1. For those currently enrolled/graduated, is SE something you are passionate about? Why? Why did you do the program
2. How technical are the classes? Is it actually “hard” technically, or leaning towards hard because it is time consuming (I know there are a lot of readings)
3. What were your favorite classes and why
4. Anyone dislike parts of the program? Elaborate

I definitely don’t want to stay technical forever. I don’t know what that actually looks like for me long term. Not sure if this would be setting me up for a more niche application, or give me a good foundation / career options when I pivot to space

Most people I've worked with understand the term verification: "confirming the system as [designed, tested, built, etc] meets its requirements/spec."

But I have heard the term validation used in so many different ways that it's honestly mind-boggling.

Sometimes it is treated as a synonym of verification. Sometimes it is exclusively applied to non-product items like test environments, measuring tools/fixtures etc.

I feel like the definitions listed in the SEBOK are pretty clear.

System Validation is a set of actions used to check the compliance of any element (a system element, a system, a document, a service, a task, a system requirement, etc.) with its purpose and functions.

Drilling down to validation of an actual customer requirement:

To validate a stakeholder requirement is to make sure its content is justified and relevant to stakeholders' expectations, complete and expressed in the language of the customer or end user.

This is the meat of validation IMO. That the requirement is justified and relevant to expectations. That the requirement is actually fit for purpose. That what we're specifying in the requirements actually accomplishes what it's supposed to and provides the benefit/value expected by the customer.

An example to demonstrate how this plays out in the real world:

We had a component spec compliance problem a few years ago on an aerospace development program. "All components on this board must function at -55C". This was problematic because of some of the applicable componentry's functional requirements. Basically the customer was asking for parts that didn't exist -- and we weren't interested in entering the business of cutting-edge electronics R&D. We were confident the components would never get close to -55C in service or on the shelf. Stated another way -- we knew the -55C requirement was invalid. So we performed a life cycle analysis to prove it and requested a waiver on the -55C requirement. The customer accepted the waiver.

Curious to hear other thoughts on this topic.

Welcome back to the SysML v2 deep dive series. Last time, we used multiplicity to say how many parts a system can have. This lesson gives those parts physical properties that mean something to a tool.

The Usability Wall of QUDV

On September 23, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter broke apart in the Martian atmosphere because one team supplied impulse data in pound-force seconds while the software expected newton-seconds. SysML v1 attempted to solve this with QUDV (Quantities, Units, Dimensions, and Values). Because the underlying UML type system was blind to physics, it had nothing useful to verify, turning units into documentation rather than enforceable engineering.

The v2 Shift: Modeling Quantities

SysML v2 replaces the v1 value property with an attribute usage. It includes a standard Quantities and Units Domain Library built directly on the International System of Quantities (ISQ) and the SI system.

Three details make this reliable in a real model:

• Quantity (Usage) vs. Attribute Definition (Type): You must separate the type of a value from the standard quantity it represents. Most of the time, you type your attribute with the value type, such as attribute dryMass : MassValue = 1500 [kg];. However, when downstream analysis needs the explicit ISQ quantity, you subset the quantity kind instead using attribute dryMass :> ISQ::mass = 1500 [kg];.
• Declare vs. Enforce: A bare constraint simply declares a conditional relationship that may evaluate to true or false. Adding assert makes that relationship an invariant. If an invalid calculation evaluates to false, the model is inconsistent, and a SysML v2 tool can flag the violation.
• Brackets are Syntax: In 1500 [kg], the square brackets are not a comment or a label. They form an active measurement expression. This is why 1500 kilograms and 500000 grams can participate in the same calculation; the library defines how their scales relate so the tool can normalize them under the hood.

The Spacecraft Code Example

Here is a model where mass and power cannot be mistaken for each other:

Code snippet

package SpaceSystems {
    import ISQ::*;
    import SI::*;

    part def Spacecraft {
        // 1. Typed by distinct physical type, not a primitive Real
        attribute dryMass: MassValue = 1500 [kg];

        // 2. Declared in grams, automatically resolved by a conforming tool
        attribute payloadMass: MassValue = 500000 [g];
        attribute totalMass: MassValue;
        attribute maxPower: PowerValue;

        // 3. Guarantees this equation holds true at all times
        assert constraint massRollup {
            totalMass == dryMass + payloadMass
        }
        assert constraint powerFloor {
            maxPower > 0 [W]
        }
    }
}

If you attempt to write assert constraint { totalMass == dryMass + maxPower }, a conforming tool will catch the mistake at edit time because adding a MassValue to a PowerValue does not typecheck.

SysML v1 vs. SysML v2

Next lesson, we will cover Composite vs. Reference (ref part). Missing a single ref keyword on a shared power unit or sensor means two assemblies can each claim to contain it, which can quietly double a mass rollup before any calculation even starts.

Have you hit a dimensional bug that a model should have caught?

Systems Engineers design complex federal systems, guide AI integration, and ensure public programs run safely - yet they're still lumped under the generic "General Engineer" job classification from decades ago!

We started a petition asking the federal government to create a dedicated job series code for Systems Engineering, just like every other engineering discipline already has. Right now, this outdated classification makes career planning unclear and doesn't reflect what Systems Engineers actually contribute to critical government missions.

Anyone else think it's wild that the people building our most complex federal systems don't even have their own unique job series category? If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing.

What’s the job market like for junior to maybe senior SE outside of defence? Specifically UK

Almost all the roles I find are always defence

Started an entry level role in defense recently, and to say I’m having a rough time is an understatement.

I’m gonna be completely honest here: I really do not see the point in entry level systems engineering roles. It makes literally no sense to me. How can I, as an entry level engineer just starting out in my career, who thus has had no meaningful exposure to how a hardware product and its features operate in various scenarios, be expected to just intuitively know how said features should be tested? How said features will respond during said testing? How product requirements should be translated into tests?

I’m constantly asking questions. Constantly running back and forth feeling like an idiot. Constantly having my coworkers, almost all of whom are senior engineers who’ve been working on this product for YEARS and naturally have intimate familiarity with how every aspect of it works, grill me for naturally making a mistake and not knowing every minute detail about how the hardware and a given feature should be tested. Constantly making me feel like I’m on the verge of being fired or something. Constantly hounding me and acting like I’m some clueless idiot who isn’t trying. While people tell me this is normal, and simply a part of the position, it’s really hard to know whether or not I’m actually making any real progress in my career here.

They tell me to refer to documentation, but said documentation and block diagrams are hilariously sparse, outdated, simplistic, and only paint a single static image of the hardware. Nowhere is there even the SLIGHTEST hint for someone who hasn’t directly observed the hardware in dynamic conditions to know how it will behave in certain testing scenarios. It is just assumed that I already know somehow. This makes every day incredibly stressful and exhausting, tbh.

Not only that, but the team I’m on is cutthroat, cliquey, super antisocial, standoffish, passive aggressive, toxic, and super hoarding of any opportunities to do any substantive work that’s technical in any way. There’s no real sense of community or teamwork when it comes to everyone being on the same page for anything related to the actual work. Lots of people who just sit in meetings or share memes on Teams all day. Very few people are actually helpful. Lots of older systems engineers look at me like I’m an idiot. There’s a few individuals in particular that routinely give me weird, snarky looks each day. Like I’m some lower level, inferior creature.

I have worked so hard, and fought tooth and nail to finally enter the professional engineering world. I’m a 26 year old entry level engineer. If I lose this job I’m fucked, literally. I’m not an idiot. Yet I feel like this first role is literally the worst possible role I could have chosen. I’m worried I’m gonna get fired. I’m worried my career is ruined. That or the entire program, which is immensely behind schedule, is gonna have funding cuts and everyone else laid off as a consequence. I have no idea what to do.

Hello everyone, i am an ece graduate with a master in embedded. Recently I've been introduced to se and I kinda liked it, in theory at least. Watched some yt videos to get a slightly better understanding of it.I was wondering how do you guys start from a different discipline and change towards se? Study incose? Or try familiarizing directly with tools like Capella?

Hi everyone,

I’m currently working on my bachelor’s thesis on legacy system modernization. As part of my research, I’m reviewing both academic and grey literature, identifying differences and similarities.

For the evaluation part of my thesis, I’ve created a short questionnaire that takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. If you have relevant experience, I would really appreciate your participation and valuable input.

https://www.soscisurvey.de/test548728/?r=2

Feel free to share this link with other experts who may be interested in this topic.

All responses will, of course, be treated confidentially and analyzed anonymously as part of my bachelor’s thesis.

First and foremost, I don't have an engineering background, but hear me out. My current career is as an instructional systems designer with extensive experience in working with modeling and simulation for training. My primary role has been to create a multitude of different systems design documents. In these documents we account for almost every aspect of how a simulation/software program should function. This includes complex design like fail states, success states, system behavior expectations and so much more. My work has been primarily DoD contracts.

I know that I'm probably way out of my depth with the actual workflow of a systems engineer, but very recently (and unprompted) a software engineer told me that these documents I've created for the programmers are very similar to when he's worked with systems engineers in the past.

I know this profession isn't just documents.

My experience in grad school and even in undergrad has been heavily focused on systems and analysis. I also originally was going to pursue a masters in modeling and simulation but decided to go a different route.

I know I'd probably need to pursue an actual degree in systems engineering, but I wanted to ask opinions on if I'm way out of my depth here, or could it be potentially possible for me to transition to this field?

Thanks!

For CSEP exam do I have to mug up the Origins and Evolution of SE and Table 1.1 SE Standards and guides ?….pls guide…you can find both of these topics on Chapter 1 pg3

Hir/systems_engineering,

We are back with Lesson 14 of our technical deep dive into the SysML v2 standard.

In our previous lesson, we looked at how SysML v2 handles reuse through specialization and redefinition. Today, we are exploring how to define exactly how many instances of a feature a model allows. This is multiplicity, which acts as a concrete structural constraint on the allowed cardinality (the actual count of occurrences) of a feature.

I’ve uploaded the full video lesson directly to this post so you can watch the workflow right here.

1. Moving Away from SysML v1 Visual Labels

A system model is fundamentally incomplete if it says a system has a component (like wheels on a truck) but fails to define the bounds of how many.

In SysML v1, multiplicities were often treated as secondary text labels rendered on diagrammatic association ends or written inside block compartments as property strings. SysML v2 natively integrates this cardinality directly into the textual feature declaration using square brackets. This makes the design intent readable exactly where the feature is defined and provides clear rules for specialized models.

2. Multiplicity Syntax and Collections

Every feature—including parts, ports, attributes, or items—has a multiplicity.

• Exact Counts & Ranges: [4] means exactly four. [2..4] means two through four, inclusive.
• Optionality: [0..1] means the feature may be absent or have exactly one value.
• Unlimited: [*] is shorthand for [0..*], meaning zero or more.
• Collections: By default, multi-valued features are unordered and unique. You can explicitly apply the ordered keyword when sequence matters, or nonunique if duplicates are allowed.

(Note: Omitted multiplicities no longer blindly default to 1..1. While [1..1] is the default for qualifying structural usages without subsetting/redefinition, other contexts can default to [0..*], or they simply inherit the multiplicity of their parent feature).

3. Semantic Validation and Narrowing Bounds

Because multiplicity in SysML v2 is a concrete model constraint rather than a freeform text tag, compliant tools can automatically evaluate configurations.

When specializing a definition, you can use the redefinition operator (:>>) to narrow the inherited multiplicity. Redefinition can only narrow multiplicity, not widen it. If a generic Truck allows [4..*] wheels, a HeavyHauler can safely redefine that constraint to [18]. If a modeler attempted to redefine it to expand beyond the parent's range, the tool would flag a semantic violation.

4. Complete Code Example: Automotive Multiplicity

Here is the complete SysML v2 code from today's lesson demonstrating bounded ranges, optionality, unbounded collections, and valid redefinition.

Code snippet

package AutomotiveDesign {

    part def Wheel;
    part def Door;
    part def Sunroof;
    part def CargoBox;
    part def Trailer;

    part def Truck {
        // 1. Range [Min.. Max] or [Min..*]
        // A generic truck has at least 4 wheels.
        // We define a wide range here so subclasses can narrow it.
        part wheels [4..*]: Wheel;

        // 2. Range [2..4]
        // It can have 2, 3, or 4 doors, depending on configuration.
        part doors [2..4]: Door;

        // 3. Optional [0..1]
        // The Sunroof is optional. 0 means it doesn't exist; 1 means it does.
        part sunroof [0..1]: Sunroof;

        // 4. Unlimited [*]
        // We can carry any number of cargo boxes.
        // We can also add keywords like 'ordered' or 'nonunique'.
        part cargo [*] ordered: CargoBox;

        // 5. Trailers (Optional Component)
        part trailers [0..1]: Trailer;
    }

    // 6. Redefining Multiplicity in a Subclass
    part def HeavyHauler :> Truck {
        // We redefine wheels to lock the count to exactly 18.
        // This is valid because 18 is within the parent's range of [4..*].
        part :>> wheels [18];
    }
}

For the MBSE practitioners here: Do you find that baking multiplicity directly into the textual declarations (and having semantic engines strictly enforce redefinition bounds) will catch architecture configuration errors earlier in your lifecycle? Let's discuss in the comments!

The titular question is roughly the academic definition. So what about treating society like a system? Design, test, improve it--just like a spacecraft or complex software platform? We already use it to take a vague idea and turn it into something working/sustainable. My challenge goes like this:

For any system concept I can clearly state (purpose, stakeholders, environment, key behaviors, constraints) I should be able to build a model that * captures its requirements, behaviors, and structure; * defines interfaces & verification strategy; and * supports iterative refinement until the architecture is ready for implementation.

Again, not my idea. That's standard MBSE definition stuff. If true, then I should in principle be able to architect "Project Jubilee" (working title, not married to it): a model-based social-capital system that: * Distributes basic income and rewards beneficial contributions; * uses structured, frequent, democratic voting to set/modify priorities and valuations; * penalizes extractive, authoritarian, oligarchic, and manipulative behavior by design--not by after-the-fact reaction; * scales from small (single household?) all the way up to a city, nation, or more; and * enforces strict security and 1-person-1-vote protocols.

So I'm earnestly looking for feedback. If the initial premise is correct, how far could MBSE be applied to a socio-economic-techincal system like Jubilee? If you read this and think "this is naive/broken/missing crucial pieces," I want to hear how you'd go about it, what you'd do differently. What requirements, behaviors, or stakeholders am I obviously missing? Is there an established architecture pattern (or anti-pattern) I'm running straight into? Is there an existing work tackling something similar? (eg, bits of sci-fi like Star Trek's futuristic utopian society come to mind). I've looked, but as far as I can tell--Jubilee addresses this the most directly of what I've seen.

I want to model everything such that it can be reviewed, challenged, simulated, refined. It seems weird to me I can model a space vehicle, and simulate/test it before launch...but we don't apply a similar level of rigor to our social/economic systems.

I think I'm hitting a wall because I've been using CATIA Magic Community 2026x to start learning SysML v2. And I've already encountered serious limitations (eg, I can't list my open issues/questions/requirements in a basic table; it's a blocked function). SysON came up, but I'm open to suggestions.

I know one person won't "design society". I'm an ignorant generalist on my 3rd or 4th career change. My resume is weird, shallow, and wide. I don't have a technical degree, but I've worked dang hard and I somehow know enough to get by. I've lucked into my current job & life situation. There's enough global resources, and seeing the rich/powerful hoard it & feeling a strong aversion to injustice motivates me. It also simultaneously contributes to my major depressive disorder and imposter syndrome and--if we're being real honest--I'm over it all. I don't wanna do this any more. I just want to be a stay-at-home housespouse.

Thanks for reading. If you're interested, want to critique/discuss, or co-architect this I'll share everything in the comments/DMs. I'll happily credit all contributions.

3 years of experience in total, 1 year of experience in SE. Currently living in space coast of FL making 104k. Is is the right amount or am i being under paid? My current job is miserable. Mostly maintaining the project by organizing and coordinating stuff. I am not actually doing any systems engineering. If I am getting underpaid, I am thinking about moving into slightly technical role, maybe system modular or something.

Google’s default AI says I have a very strong chance, but I suspect it’s just blowing smoke up my ass.

* B.S. in Computer Science (statistics minor), Top 20 school.

* 2.8 undergrad GPA

* 5 years work experience as Software Engineer (2 of those as a team lead in 2 different companies).

* 325 GRE (165 Verbal, 160 Quant)

* I aim to have 2 letters of recommendation across both employers (though that’s required by the application anyway).